FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

VOLUME 1B
JUDEAN WAR 2
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
translation and commentary
EDITED BY

STEVE MASON

VOLUME 1B

JUDEAN WAR 2
TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
BY

STEVE MASON

with Honora Chapman

BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2008
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Josephus, Flavius.
Judean war : translation and commentary / Steve Mason with Honora Chapman.
p. cm. — (Flavius Josephus : translation and Commentary ; v. 1b)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-16934-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Jews—History—168
B.C.-135 A.D. 2. Herod Agrippa I, King of Judea, 10 B.C.-44 A.D. 3.
Jews—Politics and government—To 70 A.D. I. Mason, Steve, 1957- II.
Chapman, Honora. III. Title. IV. Series.

DS122.7.J67 2008
933'.05—dc22

2008032466

ISBN 978 90 04 16934 0

Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the
appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

For Jonathan Edmondson,

whose capacious view of ancient history, exemplary scholarship, administrative acumen, and unflagging
energy have brought innumerable benefits to his colleagues at York University
 CONTENTS

List of Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Series Preface: The Brill Josephus Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

War 2: Preface and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Text and Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

Critical Editions of Fragmentary Texts Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441

Index of Ancient Texts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445

Index of Ancient Persons and Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

Index of Modern Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

viii series preface
series preface ix

LIST OF MAPS

Map of Judea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii

Map of Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Map of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
x series preface
series preface xi

SERIES PREFACE

THE BRILL JOSEPHUS PROJECT

Titus (?) Flavius Josephus (37–ca. 100 CE) was and regular international meetings. The time is
born Joseph son of Mattityahu, a priestly aristocrat right, therefore, for the first comprehensive English
in Judea. During the early stages of the war against commentary to Josephus.
Rome (66-73 CE) he found himself leading a part The commentary format is ancient, and even in
of the defense in Galilee. But by the spring of 67, antiquity commentators differed in their aims and
his territory overrun, he had surrendered under cir- methods. Philo’s goals were not those of the author
cumstances that would furnish grounds for endless of Qumran’s Commentary on Nahum or of the
accusation. Taken to Rome by the Flavian conquer- Church Father Origen. In order to assist the reader
ors, he spent the balance of his life writing about of this series, the Brill Project team would like to
the war, Judean history and culture, and his own explain our general aims and principles. Perhaps
career. He composed three or four works, depend- the most important observation is that we do not
ing on how one counts them, in thirty volumes. aim to provide the last word on reading Josephus.
If Josephus boasts about the unique importance To the contrary, since no commentary yet exists
of his work (War 1.1-3; Ant. 1.1-4) in the fashion in English, we hope simply to provide hereby an
of ancient historians, few of his modern readers opening and invitation to the further exploration
could disagree with him. By the accidents of his- that will certainly come. A necessary hazard of
tory, his narratives have become the indispensable such a project is the certain knowledge that further
source for all scholarly study of Judea from about scholarship will take issue with our readings at
200 BCE to 75 CE. Our analysis of other texts and many points. We accept that reality, hoping only
of the physical remains unearthed by archaeology to have facilitated the research of others.
must occur in dialogue with Josephus’ story, for it Although we began with the mandate to prepare
is the only comprehensive and connected account a commentary alone, we soon realized that a new
of the period. translation geared to the commentary would be
Although Josephus’ name has been known for helpful for most readers, for whom it would have
nearly two millennia, ever since he lived, and he has been cumbersome to keep another translation at
been cited extensively in support of any number of hand. And since our commentary is on the Greek
agendas, his writings have not always been valued text, we would have been implicitly challenging the
as literary compositions. Readers have tended to other translation. Given that we needed to prepare
look beyond them to the underlying historical facts our own translations in any case, it seemed wisest
or to Josephus’ sources, imagining that they could to include them with the commentary as anchor and
by-pass his own artistic contribution. Concentrated reference-point. A few words about the translation,
study in the standard academic forms—journals, then, are in order.
scholarly seminars, or indeed commentaries de- Granted that every translation is an interpreta-
voted to Josephus—was lacking. The past three tion, the translator must still choose from a range
decades, however, have witnessed the birth and of criteria. For example, he or she may set out to
rapid growth of “Josephus studies” in the proper follow the contours of the original language more
sense. Signs of the new environment include all of visibly, or to place greater emphasis on idiomatic
the research tools and scholarly venues that were phrasing in the target language. There is much to be
absent before: K. H. Rengstorf’s Complete Con- said for both of these options, and for each interim
cordance to Flavius Josephus (completed in 1983) stop in the spectrum. “Accuracy” is not necessar-
and Louis Feldman’s annotated bibliography (1984) ily a criterion in such choices, for one might gain
joined with fundamental studies of the 1970s and precision in one respect (e.g., by imitating a the
1980s to prepare the ground for a proliferation of original word order or phrasing) only at the cost
Josephus-related graduate seminars, dissertations, of accuracy elsewhere (e.g., in the sentence as a
xii series preface

whole). Anyone who speaks more than one mod- Since we have undertaken to annotate words and
ern language knows that many expressions do not phrases, we have required a different kind of foun-
translate “literally,” but can only be conveyed by dation. Our goal has been to render individual Greek
idiomatic equivalents. Among ancient texts, Hom- words with as much consistency as the context
er’s epics provide famous problems: Should one will allow, to preserve the parts of speech, letting
try to render them in English dactylic hexameter adjectives be adjectives and participles be parti-
to capture that distinctive sound, which is crucial ciples, to preserve phrases and clauses intact, and
to their effect, or in looser verse to permit better in this way to reflect something of the particular
lexical matches, or even in prose, to better convey stylistic level and tone of each section. Only such
the sense? One must simply choose a set of criteria a translation, admittedly less literary when read by
and live with it. itself, could support the detailed commentary on
In our case, the best course is suggested by the the Greek text.
constraints of the commentary. If we were prepar- Needless to say, even a determined literalness
ing a stand-alone translation for independent read- must yield to the ultimate commandment of basic
ing, we might have made other choices. And cer- readability. Cases in which we have relinquished
tainly if Josephus had been an Athenian poet, other any effort to represent the Greek precisely include
considerations might have weighed more heavily. Josephus’ preference for serial aorist-participle
But Greek was his second or third language. His clauses. Given the frequency of complicated sen-
narratives are not great literature, and in terms of tences in his narratives, and the unappealing pros-
quality they vary significantly from one part to pect of treating each case formulaically, we have
another. It would be counterproductive, therefore, used a variety of English alternatives: “After X had
to try to produce an evenly high-level piece of done Y,” “When [or Once] X had occurred,” “Hav-
literature in English. Since the commentary bases ing done X,” and so forth. Or again, although in
itself upon Josephus’ particular Greek words and some cases Josephus’ “narrative present” may find
phrases, it seemed necessary to produce a transla- a passable parallel in especially colloquial English,
tion reflecting the patterns of the Greek as closely we have generally substituted a past tense, marked
as possible, in this way to provide the best anchor in some volumes by asterisk*. So we have not
for the accompanying notes. Where his Greek is pursued literalness at all costs, but we have sought
ambiguous, we can tolerate somewhat less clarity it where it seemed feasible.
than other translations because we offer ours as a In the case of personal names, we have tried to
bridge to the commentary. follow these principles. Where there was a famil-
We happily confess our admiration for the Loeb iar English equivalent that more or less reflected
translation, begun by Henry St. John Thackeray in his Greek form, we have used it. Where his ver-
the 1920s and completed in 1965 by our colleague sion differed significantly from the one familiar to
in this Brill Project (responsible for Ant. 1-4), Louis Western readers, or where he varied his form within
H. Feldman. The Loeb has been the English stan- the same narrative, we have represented his Greek
dard as long as it has been available, and it may spelling in Roman characters (using “c” for “k” and
continue in that role for some time. Our effort “-us” for “-os”). That is because it may be of in-
at a new translation implies no general criticism. terest to some readers that he uses different forms.
Although the older sections are dated now, even Where it seemed helpful, at the first occurrence of
Thackeray still reads well, often brilliantly. The the unusual name we have supplied the familiar
chief problem for us is simply that the Loeb does English equivalent in square brackets, or at least
not suit the commentator’s needs. Like most trans- in the note. Similarly, we have retained Josephus’
lations, it makes idiomatic English the highest vir- units of measurement (e.g., stadia) and titles (e.g.,
tue: rendering terms that Josephus uses frequently “prefect”), discussing their meanings and possible
by different English equivalents for variety’s sake, equivalents in the commentary rather than trying to
explaining many cryptic Greek phrases, collapsing place them in the translation.
two or more Greek clauses into a single clause for We do not pretend that this effort at literalness is
simplicity, freely altering the parts of speech, and always more accurate than an ostensibly freer ren-
homogenizing Josephus’ changing style to a uni- dering, since translation is an unavoidably complex
formly high level. and multi-layered process. Further, we have not
series preface xiii

always been able to realize our aims. Ultimately, itself. Although we do not have a satisfactory Greek
the reader who cares deeply about the Greek text text of Josephus’ entire corpus, we decided against
will need to study it directly. But we have tried to preparing a new Greek edition as part of this proj-
provide a translation that permits us to discuss what ect, since that would be a life work by itself. We
is happening in the Greek, not only for specialists have, however, paid attention to textual problems in
who can read the original texts, but also for the both translation and commentary. The best critical
many potential readers with limited ability in Greek apparatus is still to be found in Benedictus Niese’s
or access to the original. editio maior (1895), though his printed text has
The commentary aims at a balance between what been heavily criticized for its tendency to depend
one might, for convenience, call historical and liter- on one manuscript group in a somewhat mechanical
ary issues: “literary” covering everything related to way. In the absence of a better comprehensive text,
the Greek text and Josephus’ narrative, “historical” however, and given the need to make constant ref-
matters having to do with the realities outside the erence to Niese’s apparatus, we have used his text
world of the text (even if closely related to them). as a base, which we have supplemented variously
For example: How Josephus presents the causes with other available texts. The most important of
of the war against Rome is a literary-interpretative these are: the Greek text of the Loeb edition, which
problem, inviting assessment of his characteristic introduced significant adjustments to Niese, the
diction and rhetorical maneuvers, whereas the actu- Michel-Bauernfeind text of the Judean War, the
al causes of the war constitute a problem of histori- current Münster project directed by Folker Siegert
cal reconstruction, for which Josephus’ narrative is for Josephus’ Life and Against Apion, and the on-
but one line of evidence alongside other texts and going French project led by Étienne Nodet for the
material remains. Again, understanding Josephus’ Antiquities. The introductory essays to each main
Essenes is a matter for the interpreter, whereas re- section of Josephus (War, Ant. 1, 11; Life, and
constructing the real Essenes is the problem of the Apion) discuss the relevant manuscript issues.
historian—quite possibly the same investigator, but Under the “historical” rubric fall a variety of
wearing a different hat. These are not hermetically subcategories. Most important perhaps are the im-
sealed operations, of course, but the distinction pressive archaeological finds of recent decades in
helps us to remain aware of the different interests places mentioned by Josephus: building sites, coins,
of our readers. pottery, implements, inscriptions, and other items
To assist the reader who is interested in recov- of material culture. Reading his stories of Masada
ering some sense of what Josephus might have or Herodium or Gamala is greatly enriched by ob-
expected his first audience to understand from his servation of these newly identified sites, while in
narratives, we consider some of the ways in which return, his narrative throws light on the history of
each part of his narrative relates to the whole. We those places. The commentary attempts to include
point out charged words and phrases in his lexicon, reference to archaeological finds that are most rele-
which may also occur in such significant contexts vant for understanding Josephus’ narratives, though
as the prologues, speeches, and editorial asides. it obviously cannot replicate the specialist studies
We look for parallels in famous texts of his time, for each site. Other major historical categories in-
whether philosophical, historical, or dramatic, and clude the problems of Josephus’ own biography,
whether Greco-Roman, Jewish, or Christian, to his social context in Rome, and the historical re-
facilitate consideration of both possible influences, construction of persons, places, events, and social
even sources, and likely resonances with an audi- conditions mentioned by him. Here again our aim
ence. We observe set pieces (topoi) and other rhe- has been to indicate the most relevant comparative
torical effects. Even mundane but habitual features textual and material evidence bearing on the issue
of Josephus’ language and style are considered raised by Josephus’ narrative.
worthy of note. Where puzzling language appears, In preparing a commentary on such a vast cor-
we discuss possible explanations, such as: rhetori- pus, it is a challenge to achieve proportion. Some
cal artifice, multiple editions, unassimilated source stretches of narrative naturally call for more com-
vestiges, the influence of a literary collaborator, and ment than others, and yet the aesthetics of publi-
manuscript corruption. cation require a degree of balance, so that some
A basic literary problem is the content of the text passages do not go without significant commentary
xiv series preface

while others receive intense coverage. We have at- any such word or phrase exists only as part of a
tempted to a broad consistency while at the same world of discourse. To coerce agreement on any
time retaining the flexibility to delve more deeply such point would violate that world. We hope that
into unusually significant, contested, or problematic our readers will benefit from the range of expertise
passages. In a few cases, team members have found and perspective represented in these volumes.
it useful to break the commentary with an excur- It remains for the team members to thank some
sus. central players in the creation of this work, amici
A different kind of challenge is posed by the in scholarship whose names do not otherwise ap-
coming together of a dozen independent scholars pear. Many scholars in Josephan studies and related
for such a collegial enterprise. To balance individ- fields have offered encouragement at every step.
ual vision with shared mission, we have employed Though we cannot name them all, we must express
several mechanisms. First is simply our common our debt to those who are reading our work in prog-
mandate: Having joined together to produce a com- ress, without thereby implicating them in its faults:
mentary, we must each extend ourselves to consider Honora Howell Chapman, David M. Goldenberg,
questions that we might not have pursued in our Erich Gruen, Gohei Hata, Donna Runnalls, and
own research. Second, each completed assignment Pieter van der Horst.
is examined by two experts who are not part of Second, we are grateful to the editorial staff at
the team, but who assist us in maintaining overall Brill Academic Publishers for initiating this project
compliance with our goals. Third, each assignment and continuing to see it through so professionally.
is reviewed by the same general editor, who en- Our early editors were Elisabeth Erdman, Elisabeth
courages overall consistency. Finally, for War and Venekamp, Job Lisman, Sam Bruinsma, and Jan-
Antiquities we use a system of double introduc- Peter Wissink. More recently we are enjoying a
tions: the general editor introduces each of these productive collaboration with Loes Schouten, Ivo
major works, to provide an overall context; then Romein, and Anita Roodnat. They have shown
each principal contributor introduces the smaller great patience and encouragement as the project has
segment, highlighting particular issues that arise evolved into something much larger than originally
there. The Life and Against Apion have one intro- anticipated, along with the inevitable delays caused
duction each, because in those cases the individual by administrative interruptions in the careers of
assignment corresponds to the entire work. team members, protracted illness, changes of em-
Thus uniformity is not among our goals. Com- ployment, the departure of some team members and
mittees do not create good translations or commen- the addition of others. Amidst all these reversals of
taries. We have striven rather for an appropriate fortune, the staff at Brill have continued to extend
balance between overall coherence and individual their energetic and professional support.
insight—the animating principle of humanistic In addition to expressing the group’s thanks to
scholarship. The simple Greek word Ioudaios af- these fine representatives of a distinguished pub-
fords an example of the diversity among us. Schol- lishing house and historic promoter of Josephus
ars in general differ as to whether English “Judean” research, I wish to record my personal gratitude
or “Jew” comes closest to capturing what an ancient to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Greek or Roman heard in this word, and our team Council of Canada, for its generous funding from
members reflect that difference. Some of us have 1998 to the present, and to the Faculty of Arts at
opted for “Judean” as a standard, and the editor’s York University. Both have made possible my in-
preference is reflected in the volume titles; some volvement with this worthy project.
use both terms, depending upon the immediate
context; and others use “Jew” almost exclusively. Steve Mason, York University
For the modern translator, as for Josephus himself, General Editor, Brill Josephus Project
preeface and acknowledgements xv

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Because Book 2 of Josephus’ Judean War cov- recover through equal attention to his verbal clues
ers the seventy-year period from Herod’s death (language, contexts, structures) and to what these
in 4 BCE to the first phase of the war with Rome codes might have evoked from first-century audie-
(late 66 CE), it is the most extensively cited of nces (given what educated Romans knew). Secon-
his thirty volumes. Although there are reworked darily, I discuss what Josephus—i.e., the implied
parallels to much of this material in Antiquities author of this narrative, since we have no access
17-20 and Life, War 2 is where we look first for: to the man’s psyche—had in view, even if this
the Herodian succession struggle; the revolt of 4 could not likely have been clear to his audience:
BCE; the governments of Herod’s three surviv- his models, sources, and inspirations. Finally, I
ing sons; Judea as a Roman province; the pre-war raise the question of the things to which Josephus
prefects and procurators (including Pontius Pilate); refers, and the possible implications of his narrative
the Judean philosophical schools (including the fa- for various historical scenarios. Although I often
mous Essenes); Gaius Caligula’s effort to place his indicate other evidence bearing on those underlying
statues in the temple; the reigns of Agrippa I and phenomena, my goal is to help the reader to think
II; the appearance of charismatic prophets, mili- about history from the perspective of Josephus’
tants, and sicarii; and the immediate background narrative, not immediately to solve the historical
to the war itself (e.g., events in Caesarea, deterio- problems themselves. For each of those problems,
rating relations with Greek cities, the intervention a new investigation of relevant evidence would be
and defeat of Cestius Gallus, the appointment of needed.
The consequence of this method is that I do not
Judean generals—including Josephus—and their
try to engage all (or any) of the historical manuals
war preparations).
for each episode described by Josephus. A volume
The importance of War 2 for scholarship might
attempting to do so would be several times larger
seem to place unusual expectations on the com-
than this one. I mention those works only occasion-
mentator, and so I hasten to clarify the aims and
ally and illustratively, along with specific scholarly
intended limitations of this volume. When a cor-
studies of the issue at hand. Where I mention events
respondent heard that I was working on this ma- or dates without indicating sources, the implication
terial, his response was: “Excellent: an update of is that this is the sort of “public-domain” informa-
Schürer!”—referring to the widely used four-vol- tion that one would glean from standard reference
ume handbook on this period. But to endorse that works (especially Pauly-Wissowa, the Oxford Clas-
assumption would be to create misguided expecta- sical Dictionary, and the revised Schürer). The
tions. Schürer and all other handbooks of first-cen- special contribution of this work is meant to be
tury Judaism are concerned chiefly with the history not another historical reconstruction of the things
of Judea. They begin with problems of the past and that Josephus describes, but prolegomena toward a
gather the relevant evidence to fill in the periods clearer understanding of his meaning, and hence of
and personalities. Although it has been customary his value for historical reconstruction.
(Schürer is the paradigm) to read that history out This volume’s designation as “1b” in the series
of Josephus’ narratives, especially where he is our will have alerted the reader that we have adjusted
only source, this volume works in the opposite the original numbering system to accommodate the
direction. unexpectedly large size of some of our volumes.
In order to use evidence for historical recon- Similarly, Josephus’ Life and Against Apion, origi-
struction, one must first understand it contextually. nally planned as a joint Volume 9, have expanded
Thus, my primary interest is in the meaning of as Volumes 9 (2001) and 10 (2007).
Josephus’ narrative. “Meaning” here signifies first An important consequence of this revised enu-
what he wished to communicate through this text meration is that some supporting parts of the origi-
to his real audiences, something that one tries to nally planned volume, mentioned in the following
xvi preeface and acknowledgements

commentary to War 2, had to go in Volume 1a: month of focused research and writing in Konstanz,
Judean War 1 (by Joseph Sievers and Anthony Germany, as the grateful guest of Professors Ulrich
Forte), which will not appear for serveral years. Gotter and Kai Trampedach, as fellow of their re-
Although I have written the introductory essay search group on ancient monarchy and tyranny.
for War as a whole, it will come at the beginning The recent emergence of the “ancient” field in
of that volume. Wherever I ask the reader to “see York’s Graduate Program in History, pioneered by
Introduction,” that is the essay in question. Further, my indefatigable colleague Jonathan Edmondson,
Hanan Eshel and Peter Richardson have prepared has brought first-rate doctoral students to York. I
an outstanding archaeological appendix on Judea, am pleased to acknowledge their help with aspects
Samaria, Perea, and the coast (complementing “Ap- of commentary preparation and with the crucial
pendix A” on Galilee by M. Aviam and P. Richard- preparation of indices and bibliography. Those doc-
son in vol. 9), which must also come in that first toral students are Tommaso Leoni, Reuben Lee,
volume. Finally, because of its close ties with the William den Hollander, and Michael Helfield. In
Introduction, I translated Josephus’ prologue (War addition to preparing drafts of the bibliography and
1.1-30) and prepared the commentary for it. Al- indices, they provided invaluable support and as-
though I often refer to those programmatis notes for sistance with numerous other tasks along the way,
thematically charged terms that first appear in the which I dare not try to list.
prologue, it will of course only appear in Volume For research collaboration I owe a singular debt
1a. to Professor Honora H. Chapman (California State
It remains to acknowledge the many groups and University, Fresno). In the early phases of this
individuals that have enabled me to see this vol- volume’s preparation, when I was distracted by
ume to completion. It has been a long time in the the demands of the PACE (above), Nora—then my
making, partly because my appointment as Canada co-Chair in the SBL Josephus Seminar—took time
Research Chair in Greco-Roman Cultural Interac- from her heavy teaching load to help with prepa-
tion (2003) brought a near hiatus of three years, as ration of materials. A thoroughly trained classicist
I worked on the creation of a web-based research who teaches Greek across the genres, with special
tool: the Project on Ancient Cultural Engagement interests in drama and spectacle, Nora undertook
(pace.cns.yorku.ca). Now, that project is integrat- to prepare a quick and rough translation of most of
ed with this one, and I gratefully acknowledge Book 2 from that perspective. Whereas I had come
the funding agencies and research associates who to the study of Josephus from training in Jewish
have collaborated on both. On the funding side, Studies, Christian origins, and koine Greek, and
the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canada had worked to develop facility in ancient historiog-
Foundation for Innovation, and the Social Sciences raphy, rhetoric, and philosophy, Nora (whose Stan-
and Humanities Research Council of Canada have ford dissertation dealt with spectacle in Josephus’
provided the basic framework (a lab for the online War) was well positioned to identify elements of
project, research time, and funding for assistance). War’s uniquely Atticizing Greek that I might have
York University and the Faculty of Arts under missed and to suggest possible resonances from
Dean Robert Drummond have been constant allies Greek epic and tragedy. She also highlighted tex-
in providing supplementary funding and facilitating tual variants that might merit closer study. Nora’s
this work. contribution was all the more valued because it
For the research itself, the University of Oxford was inherently thankless: she knew that it would
has become a “home from home.” My happy asso- not be visible in the final volume. (The translation
ciation with Wolfson College (originally facilitated would need to develop in dialogue with the com-
by Professor Martin Goodman) provides ongoing mentary, and I would need to explore the textual
access to Oxford’s extraordinary resources and re- variants and possible resonances.) So I want to
search environment. Near the beginning of this explicitly acknowledge her valuable contributions
project I also enjoyed a memorable and productive and reference-points, while exempting Nora from
stay at All Souls College as Visiting Fellow (2002- responsibility for the resulting translation and com-
2003), followed by several months at Trinity Col- mentary.
lege, Dublin, enabled by Dr. Zuleika Rodgers. Near Finally, the commentary project would not be
the end (July 2007) I was privileged to spend a possible without the long-term commitment of
preeface and acknowledgements xvii

Brill Academic Publishers, in the persons of Loes But their good cheer, steadfast encouragement, and
Schouten, Ivo Romein, and Anita Roodnat. Their rapid but expert preparation of the material they
patience has been tested by long delays in relation receive make possible the work of the academic
to the original schedule—not least for this vol- editor, who is in this case also a contributor.
ume—caused by contributors’ career interruptions.
preeface and acknowledgements
Courtesy of Richard Cleave, of Røhr Productions (Nicosia, Cyprus), from his Student Map Manual: Historical Geography of the Bible Lands (Jerusalem:
Pictorial Archive, 1979).
xviii
abbreviations xix

ABBREVIATIONS

In general this volume uses the abbreviations for classical, biblical, Jewish, and early Christian texts,
as well as modern journals, found in Patrick Alexander et al., The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient
Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). Although it is
incomplete on the classical side, that style guide provides the fullest coverage for the overlapping worlds
relevant to studying Josephus: Greco-Roman, Judean, and early Christian. Where the SBLHS lacks ab-
breviations for classical texts, I follow those of the Oxford Classical Dictionary, revised third edition, ed.
Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (2003). Asterisk * indicates a Greek present tense translated
as past.
For some commonly cited reference works, the following abbreviations apply.

ANRW Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der rö-
mischen Welt, 41 volumes in 89 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1972-1998).
BGU Aegyptische Urkunden aus den königlichen (staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin,
Griechische Urkunde (Berlin: Weidmann, 1895-).
BJP Steve Mason, ed., Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, 12 projected
vols. in 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2000–). The abbreviation represents the “Brill Josephus
Project.”
CCFJ Karl H. Rengstorf, et al., eds., Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, 4 vols.;
with Supplementband for proper nouns by Abraham Schalit (1968) (Leiden: Brill,
1973-1983).
CPJ V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cam-
bridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957–1964).
FHG Karl Otfried Müller, ed., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 4 vols. (Paris: Am-
brosio Firmin-Didot, 1878).
GLAJJ Menahem Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Je-
rusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984).
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Ongoing series from 1860 to the present, continuing a
project begun in 1815, currently managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akad-
emie der Wissenschaften, published by Georg Reimer and now W. de Gruyter of
Berlin.
ILS Hermann Dessau, ed., Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. in 5. Fourth edn.
(Dublin: Weidmann, 1974 [1892]).
Jacoby/FGrH Felix Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der grieschischen Historiker. 3 vols. in 15 (Berlin:
Weidmann, 1923-1959).
JIWE David Noy, ed., Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1995).
LSJ H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Stuart Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn. (Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 1940).
LTUR Eva Margareta Steinby, ed., Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, 6 vols. (Rome:
Quasar, 1993).
M-B Otto Michel and Otto Bauernfeind, De bello judaico, der jüdische Krieg. Griechisch
und Deutsch, 3 vols. in 4 (second, corrected edition; Munich: Kösel/Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962-1969).
OGIS Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Dittenberger, ed., Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae,
2 vols. (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1960 [Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903-1905]).
Pelletier André Pelletier, ed., Josèphe, Guerre des Juifs, 3 vols., “Collection des Universités
de France [Budé]” (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1975-1982).
xx abbreviations

PIR Elimar Klebs, Hermann Dessau, Paul von Rohden, and Deutsche Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I. II. III, 3 vols.
(Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1897).
PIR2 Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften., and Berlin-Brandenburgische Akad-
emie der Wissenschaften. Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I. II. III, 3 vols.
Second edn. (Berlin and Leipzig: W. de Gruyter, 1933).
PW August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Kurt Witte, Karl Mittelhaus, Konrat
Ziegler, eds. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: neue
Bearbeitung, 83 vols. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894-1980.
Schürer-Vermes Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols.
in 4, revised by Geza Vermes et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979-1987).
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Vols. 1–25 [1923–1971], Leiden: van Nijf;
vols. 26– [1979–], Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, now Leiden: Brill).
Simonetti Manlio Simonetti, Flavio Giuseppe: Storia dei Giudei da Alessandro Magno a
Nerone, “I Meridiani – Classici dello Spirito” (Milan: Arnaldo Mondadori, 2002)
[Ant. 12-20].
Smyth Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, revised edition ed. G. M. Messing (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984).
Thackeray LCL H. St. J. Thackeray, The Jewish War, Books I-III and Books IV-VII, vols. 2 and 3 of
Josephus in Nine Volumes, “Loeb Classical Library” 203 and 210 (London: Wil-
liam Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971, 1979 [1927,
1928]).
Vitucci Giovanni Vitucci, Flavio Giuseppe: La Guerra Giudaica, 2 vols., “Scrittori greci
e latini” (Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla: Arnaldo Mondadori, 1974).
Whiston William Whiston, ed., The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1987 [1737]).
book two 1

JOSEPHUS, JUDEAN WAR

2 book two
book two 3

BOOK TWO

(1.1)1 1 Now the need for Archelaus’2 journey to Rome3 was the occasion for new disor- Herod’s funeral.
ders.4 For having mourned his father seven days5 and provided the very expensive funeral Archelaus
awaits
banquet for the rabble6—this custom7 is for many Judeans a cause of poverty,8 given that confirmation.
banqueting the rabble9 is not free of compulsion,10 for if someone were to neglect it, Ant. 17.200

1
The parallel story begins at Ant. 17.200. As in bk. period is a biblical custom, assumed throughout later
1, it often appears in what follows that Josephus abbrevi- Judean texts (Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13/1 Chron 10:12;
ates his account in relation to the source(s) used more Jdt 16:24; Sir 22:12). The Roman custom called for 9
fully for the Antiquities parallel. Of these, the Univer- days of mourning: see Levison 2002: 272-3.
6
sal History by Herod’s aide Nicolaus of Damascus must In the parallel at Ant. 17.200, “custom” language
have continued to figure prominently until about 2.100, is used only of the 7-day mourning period; the feast is
since Nicolaus was personally involved in these affairs. mentioned very briefly. Greek τὸ πλῆθος, used more
Cf. Pelletier 2.201 n. 1. than 500 times by Josephus, is difficult to translate. It is
2
Archelaus (b. ca. 27 BCE, son of Herod and a collective singular of rather dehumanizing force: the
Malthace) was introduced in the survey of Herod’s wives “mob, multitude, horde, throng.” But the first of these
and children at 1.562, then described as an intended has suggested to some readers a sort of mafia; the second
victim of half-brother Antipater’s plotting while he was is not in standard use. The last two terms I use, as well
being educated in Rome (1.602). Because of this plot- as “rabble,” where they seem to fit better; none of them
ting Herod ignored Archelaus in one version of his will is perfect. Contrast Josephus’ language for members of
(1.646), which designated Antipas heir, but the king later the élite (cf. 2.239), which consists of plural adjectives
reconciled with Archelaus and made him—his oldest inviting one to imagine a small group.
7
surviving son—heir-designate as Judean king (1.664). Providing a lavish funeral banquet for large numbers
On Archelaus see Kokkinos 1998: 226-29. was not an obligation laid down in the Torah, though
3
Josephus looks ahead (cf. 2.14-110) to Archelaus’ it had evidently become a custom among the élite of
trip concerning the settlement of Herod’s succession. Josephus’ day. Prophetic literature may know of such
This trip occupied a period from the spring (2.42) of practices, when it forbids them in the context of divine
4 until perhaps 3 BCE. Josephus mentions very little judgment (Jer 16:7-8; cf. Ezek 24:17). Funeral feasting
(2.111-16) of Archelaus’ decade-long rule in his terri- was, however, a Roman custom (on the 9th day of mourn-
tory, which might suggest that the ethnarch was in his ing): Toynbee 1971: 51; Levison 2002. Cicero speaks
territory for only a short period. But at 2.64 Josephus of “thousands” present for one such feast (Vat . 31). It is
mentions incidentally that Archelaus had a role in sup- characteristic for Josephus to explain Judean customs,
pressing the revolt that began in 4 BCE. laws, and conditions of life in the War (1.60, 447; 2.10,
4
See the note to this dramatic term, woven into the 119, 195, 313, 321, 425; 3.35-58; 4.451-85; 5.236-37;
fabric of War, at 1.4. Still looking ahead: Archelaus’ 6.299-300), suggesting that he expects a non-Judean
lengthy absence from Judea at the start of his reign will audience (cf. War 1.3, 6). See Introduction.
8
be the occasion of a major revolt (2.39-79), requiring Contrast Apion 2.205, where Josephus boasts that
the intervention of the Syrian governor P. Quinctilius the Judean constitution’s provisions for fulfillment of
Varus with 3 legions, 2,000 cavalry, and a large auxil- one’s obligations to the dead are simple and inexpensive
iary force (2.66-68)—not much smaller than the army (τῆς . . . ὁσίας οὐ πολυτελείαις), seeming to negate the
used to defeat the Judeans 70 years later (3.64-69). That very words he uses here. There he elaborates that the
revolt, which involved campaigns in Galilee and Sama- ceremony is only for the nearest relatives, though all are
ria (2.68-9), is featured in the prologue (1.20). It was expected to join any funeral procession they encounter.
therefore a major event from Josephus’ perspective, in Simplicity of funerary rites has particularly strong paral-
some respects a precursor to this work’s main theme, the lels in Roman-élite discussions (Levison 2002: 247-50),
conflict of 66-73. though the tension between such ideals and the reality
5
Although the Bible does not prescribe this, it does of elaborate funerals for the wealthy is also well attested
specify a 7-day period of impurity for those who have for Rome (see previous note).
9
either touched a corpse or been in the same tent with A similar expression, “banqueting the populace”
one (Num 19:11, 14; 31:19), and the 7-day mourning (ἑστιάω τὸν δῆμον), appears at Ant. 16.14, 55. The for-
4 book two

he would not be pious11—he changed* into a white garment12 and proceeded* into the
temple,13 where the citizenry14 welcomed* him with various forms of adulation.15 2 After
hailing16 the rabble from a high platform and golden throne,17 he thanked* them for the

mulation here (ἑστιᾶν τὸ πλῆθος) conveys a mixture 3.15; 8.19; with the note to “white” at 2.123 below.
of contempt and pity for the public figure, who must at Accordingly, Josephus’ Essenes always wear white
all costs pander to “the rabble” (i.e., the mass of com- (War 2.123, 137), as do Philo’s Therapeutae, at least for
mon people) if he wishes to hold effective power. Jose- meetings (Contempl. 66); Beall (1988: 46) finds a prefer-
phus’ contemporary Dio Chrysostom (Or. 66.9) likewise ence for white also at Qumran (1QM 7.9-10). For other
observes that one seeking political fame must pay out groups in Judean and Christian traditions, see Eccl 9:8;
vast sums to collect a cast of entertainers if he wants to Dan 7:9; 2 Macc 11:8; 2 Esd 2:40; Matt 17:12; 28:3;
banquet the rabble (ἑστιάσειν τὸ πλῆθος) in a convinc- Rev 1:14; 3:4, 5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 14; 19:14. Sanders
ing way. (1992: 96-102) discusses the rarity of white clothes and
10
“Compulsion” is the same word (ἀνάγκη) as fabrics. Since bright white was not a natural color, it took
“necessity” in 2.1. It is characteristic of Josephus to use considerable effort to create (Croom 2000: 28).
the same word in different senses within a short space. It is uncertain whether Josephus learned from his
11
Or “pure, sinless.” The Greek has only οὐχ ὅσιος in source that Archelaus wore white here—a detail absent
the apodosis, where we might have expected ἄν with a from the Antiquities parallel (17.200)—or whether
verb. On the substance, see notes to “custom” and “pov- he has freely adapted the source as he does the Bible
erty” in this section. (above); if the latter, whether his accommodation is to
12
What would Cicero have said? In his retaliatory actual Judean practice of the day or to a more general
speech against Vatinius (56 BCE), he dwelt on the lat- standard expected by the audience.
13
ter’s egregious error of etiquette in wearing black to a Josephus follows standard usage in distinguishing
funeral banquet. “With so many thousand people at table the larger sacred precinct or compound (τὸ ἱερόν, as
and with the master of ceremonies himself, Q. Arrius, all here) from the shrine building—in Jerusalem, the Holy
in white, you took to the temple of Castor in mourning Place containing the Holy of Holies—that was consid-
clothes, with C. Fibulus and your other bad spirits in ered the deity’s home (ὁ ναός, e.g. at 2.5). See the note
funeral dress” (Vat. 31). Evidently the Roman custom to “shrine” at 1.10.
14
was to wear dark clothes for mourning, and to change Greek λαός, used only 39 times in the War, is a
into white for the 9th-day banquet, which involved a more respectful term than τὸ πλῆθος (quantity, bulk,
visit to the temple of Castor. For analysis (also of Ant. mass, rabble, mob, throng); the latter is much more fre-
7.154-6) see Levison 2002: 255-6. Archelaus, however, quent in this passage, in War (294 times), and in Jose-
seems to attend the banquet as part of the mourning, phus generally.
15
changing to white clothes only for the temple visit. Adulation (εὐφημία) from the mob was standard
Others who wear white when they enter the temple, for a new ruler or conquering general: War 2.297, 511;
according to Josephus, are Kings David and Solomon 3.410, 459; 4.417; 6.316; 7.16, 103, 127. Josephus
(Ant. 7.156; 8.186). His biblical source neither dresses claimed to have received this from the Galileans (Life
them in white nor clearly prescribes white for temple 251, 253). But shouts of praise were only one side of
service. White was, however, all but universally recog- what Latin termed acclamatio (“shouting at”); this vocif-
nized as the color of purity, and to some extent of cel- erous praise prepares for the other side—the shouted
ebration: see Croom 2000: 28; Sebesta and Bonfante demands for redress of grievances that quickly follow
2001: 48. For white clothing as a sign of moral purity, (2.4, 7). Romans knew this scenario well (Aldrete 1999:
see Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.22. Ovid (Amor. 2.13.23-4) 101-71), and would perhaps have felt the tension and
assumes that one wears white to enter a temple—at least high drama in Josephus’ description of the fickle mob’s
that of Ilithyia—and Apuleius (Met. 11.47) has priests adulation.
16
of Isis wear brilliant white in procession. Manumitted Gestures played an important role in Roman ora-
slaves in the early empire wore bright white (Artemi- tory: both the larger movement of the arm(s)—normally
dorus 2.9), as would newly baptized Christians (Clem- the right, with left occasionally added for emphasis—
ent of Alexandria, Strom. 4.22.142). See also Athenaeus and the position of the fingers helped convey particular
Deipn. (4.149d-e) for the feasts of Dionysus and Apollo, emotions or transitional points in the speech (Aldrete
and generally: Aeschines, Ctes. 77.10; Strabo 15.1.71; 1999: 3-84). Particularly well represented in Roman art
Plutarch, Aristides 21.4; Lucian, Mort. per. 40.5; Ath- is the adlocutio pose, with right hand raised to address a
enaeus, Deipn. 14.621b; Pausanias 2.35.5; Aelian, Var. crowd. This may be something like the posture indicated
hist. 12.32 [of Pythagoras]; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. by the verb δεξιόομαι here.
book two 5

eagerness they had expressed concerning his father’s funeral, and indeed for their atten-
tiveness18 towards him, as if to a king already confirmed.19 And yet for the time being he
would refrain, he affirmed, not only from the authority but even from the titles,20 until
Caesar,21 who was the master of everything,22 also according to the will,23 should authorize

17
In view of the crowds present, it is easiest to imag- were reluctant to do what they promised, he would not
ine that the high platform and throne were set up in the promise what he was doing. Cf. Dio 36.11 for seeming
largest open space of the temple compound, in the S near and being, and the emperor Julian’s presentation (Ep.
the Royal Colonnade (Stoa, Portico). Ath. 11.19) of his alleged refusal to accept “either the
18
Much like Latin cura, the θεραπ–group of words address or the crown [of Augustus]” while Constantius
has a wide range of connotations, many of which Jose- II reigned.
21
phus exploits in the 10 occurrences in War 2: care or That is, Augustus, who ruled the empire from 27
devoted attentiveness (especially to a ruling figure, or BCE to 14 CE. See the note to “Romans” at 1.20.
22
to God: 2.105, 178, 297, 350, 617), reciprocal care by a Greek ὁ . . . τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης, a stronger phrase
ruler for the people (already in 2.4), attention to physical than that used in the antecedent (κύριος ἁπάντων . . .
well-being and cures (whence English “therapy”: 2.136, τῶν διαθηκῶν) at 1.669. Cf. the similar phrases used of
614). Roman rulers at 2.36 (Augustus described in Nicolaus’
19
The phrase (ὡς πρὸς βέβαιον ἤδη βασιλέα) sets defense of Archelaus), 179-180 (a role that Agrippa I
up Archelaus’ expectation in 2.3 that he will indeed be wishes for Gaius Caligula, anticipating Tiberius’ death);
“confirmed king”: a hope that Josephus’ audience knows 4.366 (Vespasian is κύριος τῶν ὅλων but within a mili-
was never fulfilled—so a small irony. tary context—“supreme commander”—paralleled by
20
It is part of Josephus’ ongoing play between “seem- Simon bar Giora on the Judean side, 5.248). In Jose-
ing and being” that he also contrasts mere titles or offices phus’ use of the absolute title (“master of everything”)
with real authority. All this derives ultimately from Plato’s may lurk a certain irony, given: the application of the
thoroughgoing distinction between the world of appear- phrase to dubious figures (cf. 1.207: Herod’s father Anti-
ances, sense-perception, and opinion, on the one hand, pater honored by all “as if master of everything”); the
and that of knowledge and the real on the other; see in reservation of such phrases in Josephus’ later works for
particular his analogy of the cave (Resp. 514a-517c). But God alone (Ant. 1.72; 4.40; 6.131; 17.244; 20.89-90;
it was also a much discussed issue among Josephus’ con- Apion 2.185; with similarly ironic usage in relation to
temporaries in the Greek renaissance: Greek statesmen Herod and Augustus at Ant. 16.118, 135); and some
of the period all realized that no matter what titles they external parallels. Epictetus (Diatr. 4.1.12-14) employs
enjoyed, real power rested in Rome (Anderson 1993: the Caesar’s position as master of all (ὁ πάντων κύριος,
101-32; Swain 1996: e.g., 151-86). δεσπότης) to challenge all illusions of freedom, even on
Josephus likes to speak of people who have reputa- the part of a consul (cf. Penwill 2003: 362-67). Tacitus
tions (δοκέω, δόξα) for things that are proven to lack a uses roughly equivalent Latin expressions, such as rerum
basis in reality (War 1.648; Ant. 17.41; 19; 332; Apion potiri (Hist. 3.74; Ann. 1.5; 6.51). Aristotle (Rhet. 1366a)
1.18, 67). At War 1.110-12 we see both contrasts, the had defined monarchy (μοναρχία) as the situation in
“seeming” picking up 1.85—concerning Alexander Jan- which one person is master of all (εἷς ἁπάντων κύριός
neus’ unfounded reputation—and the “title/real authority” ἐστιν·), and tyranny (τυραννίς) as monarchy without
contrast with respect to Queen Alexandra, who allowed restraint (ἀόριστος). By itself, the term δεσπότης was
the Pharisees the real power while she held the mere title a widely used quivalent of Latin dominus (H. J. Mason
of sovereign. Then, Hyrcanus II’s mischievous courtiers 1974: 120), also in Josephus (2.28; cf. Philo, Legat.
encourage him against Herod by complaining that he has 239—noted by Pelletier ad 2.28).
23
only the title (ὄνομα) and not the authority (ἔξουσία) The formulation may be ironic—Augustus was self-
of king (1.209). Later (1.561), Antipater pleads with his evidently master of everything, and Herod confirmed this
father not to leave him the mere title of king while oth- with respect to his estate (not a difficult choice!)—or it
ers hold the power. At 2.208 princeps-designate Claudius may simply reaffirm that Herod did designate Augus-
promises through Agrippa I that he will rest content with tus his executor (1.669; 2.35—see notes there). Herod’s
honor of the title or address (προσηγορία)—princeps?— will has changed many times (1.451, 458-60, 550-52,
while governing through broad consultation. An ironic 573, 640, 645-46, 664, 667-68). Throughout the process
twist is in Suetonius, Tib. 24: although Tiberius did not the king appears keenly aware of his dependence upon
hesitate to exercise imperium, he resisted the title that Augustus (cf. 1.457, 646, 669), even though the princeps
went with it, prompting the witticism that while others had granted Herod the singular privilege of complete
6 book two

the succession.24 3 For even when, in Jericho,25 the army was fastening the diadem26 on
him, he had not accepted it.27 Nevertheless, for their devotion and goodwill28 he would
pay back generous rewards, to the soldiers and the populace alike, as soon as he should

control over the fate of his heirs (1.536-37). For changes to receive it again from Actium’s victor. In the decade
in Roman practice in recognizing a rex sociusque et before Josephus was writing War , Domitius Corbulo had
amicus, from the late Republic to the Empire, see Braund achieved a compromise with the Parthians over Armenia
1984: 23-27. (63 CE): Tiridates, brother of the Persian king Vologeses
24
This issue of Caesar’s role in administering the suc- I, could rule Armenia if he put aside his diadem and
cession will become the focus of debate between the received it in Rome—in 66 CE, as it happened—from
potential heirs—in Rome, before Caesar (2.26-8, 34-6). the hand of Nero (Dio 62.23.3; 63.4.1). Suetonius relates
It was indeed a serious issue, as Josephus’ story of Aretas that after the conquest of Jerusalem Titus had worn a
IV confirms: he incurred Augustus’ displeasure when diadem in Memphis, Egypt, while consecrating the bull
he assumed the Nabatean throne without awaiting the Apis (Tit. 5.3). Although our reporter is quick to note
emperor’s word (Ant. 16.295, 353). Caesar’s prerogative that this was de rigueur for the ritual, he reports that
remained a central issue in the dispute between Rome Titus had to hurry to Rome to reassure his father of
and Parthia over Armenia (see Introduction). his fidelity. Given the sensitive nature of the symbol,
25
An ancient oasis-city situated a hilly 15 miles (25 Josephus portrays the potential royal heirs in Judea as
km) NE of Jerusalem in the Jordan River valley; see keenly aware that they can accept it only from the hands
further 2.57 and Appendix A. It was in the amphitheater of the world sovereign.
at Jericho that, upon the news of Herod’s death and his The pathetic character of this condition—men without
wishes for the succession, Archelaus was acclaimed by virtue or qualification striving to secure a piece of cloth
his soldiers (1.666-70); but this is the first we hear about from the master of the world, which actually proclaims
an attempt to give him the diadem. Given the ironic qual- their weakness—will be exposed when Josephus inter-
ity of the passage, it is possible that Josephus intends rupts the succession story in Rome to describe the con-
to make Archelaus a self-serving liar here: refusing an temporary Judean revolt (2.39-79), for two of the rebel
honor that had not in fact been offered. But see 2.27. leaders—a slave (2.57) and a shepherd (2.60)—assume
26
The Greek genitive absolute with a present parti- the diadem for themselves. Josephus appears in sympa-
ciple (τῆς στρατιᾶς τὸ διάδημα περιαπτούσης αὐτῷ) thy with his contemporary, Dio Chrysostom: “If any-
leaves a degree of ambiguity that will be exploited later one else has his head bound, without a fracture, he is
(2.27): Did the soldiers manage to fasten the diadem ridiculed; yet for the kings it is thought to be fitting,
(though he could claim that he disapproved)? Did they and countless thousands of men have died for this scrap
begin to do so but stop at his command? Did they merely of cloth” (Or. 66.5). Dio includes the craving for royal
signal their wish to do so? The parallel (Ant. 17.202) head-dress (diadems and tiaras) as symptomatic of tyr-
says rather that the army had been eager to fasten the anny (Or. 1.79). In Josephus, too, diadem-lust is linked
diadem upon him, but he had declined the offer. with War’s larger themes of tyranny and demagoguery
The diadem was a strip of cloth tied around the head (1.9-10); cf. Mason 2008b.
27
as an emblem of rule (cf. 1.671); see the note at 1.70. See 2.27, where Archelaus’ opponents claim that he
It was a potent symbol, which Roman principes thought had pre-empted Caesar’s prerogative by arranging for a
it important to control. According to Suetonius, in 249 diadem to be fixed on his head.
28
BCE Claudius Rursus had “set up his own statue with a The second term (εὔνοια) may have more intimate
diadem on its head (statua diademata) and tried to take connotations, such as “loyalty” and “affection.” The pair
possession of Italy” (Tib. 2.2). Julius Caesar pointedly of qualities (here with προθυμία, elsewhere sometimes
refused to accept the diadema from Antony at the Luper- τὸ πρόθυμος) is standard in Josephus (Ant. 5.96; 6.82;
calia festival (Jul. 79.2). Gaius came close to accepting 8.57; 15.193, 201; 17.195; 19.151; Life 103), in rhetoric
the diadema, which would have meant “changing the (Isocrates, Phil. 18.4; Demosthenes, Cor. 286.3; 312.2;
semblance of the principate into the form of a monarchy” Dionysius, Ant. Rom. 10.16.4; Plutarch, Alc. 30.10;
(Cal. 22.1). Caes. 16.1; Dion 10.4; Brut. 39.3; Mor. 50B.8; 453C.9;
Foreign rulers’ infringing on the emperor’s preroga- 575D.8), and in one of Josephus’ models, Polybius
tive by donning a diadem was a resonant scenario for (2.50.4; 3.17.7, 44.12, 76.13; 5.37.2; 7.9.8, 11.6; 9.44.1
Josephus’ audience. In the preceding volume (1.387-93; [frag. incert.]; 10.17.9, 14; 11.12.2; 21.3.2, 22.3; 22.5.2,
cf. 1.451) King Herod laid aside his diadem, which had 9.4; 27.5.4; 30.3.1; 31.3.2, 8.7).
been bestowed by the defeated Marc Antony, in order
book two 7

be designated the confirmed king by those in control:29 for he would be eager to show
himself better towards them in every way than his father had been.30
(1.2) 4 The rabble took pleasure31 in these [words] and immediately put his inten-
tion to the test with enormous demands:32 some were shouting for him to lighten the
tax levies,33 others to abolish the payments,34 and still others even to release the detain-

29
I.e., the Romans in the person of the princeps himself had substantially reduced taxes at times (Ant.
Augustus, as the previous sentence and the sequel 15.365; 16.64). In the case of the Babylonian immigrant
(2.20-39, 80-97) indicate. community that he settled in Batanea, he relieved them
30
Because Herod has appeared in virtuous terms in of all customary εἰσφοραί (Ant. 17.25). Ant. 17.305-6
War (contrast Ant. 14-17, where he appears also as an adds the charge that Herod seized the property of “the
arrogant violator of laws), the comments that Josephus nobility” after murdering them, though that account may
attributes to Archelaus in Ant. 17.201—gratitude that his be shaped to anticipate Gaius Caligula’s behavior in Ant.
father’s outrages against the people have not been held 19.1-4.
against him—would have been out of place here. This Josephus leaves the precise content of these imposts
notice about Archelaus’ commitment to treat the Judeans unclear. Such εἰσφοραί (a “gathering in”; in Attic Greek
well prepares for War 2.111, where the brief summary usually ad hoc levies) will, however, figure prominently
of his ethnarchy charges him with savage treatment of in War 2 (2.273, 383, 385, 404—half of the 10 occur-
both Judeans and Samarians. rences in Josephus). Judea was reportedly made subject
31
Josephus’ distaste for the rabble, which he shares to tribute by Pompey in 63 BCE (War 1.154 [φόρος];
with most ancient writers (e.g., Thucydides 2.65.8; Plu- cf. Cicero, Flac. 69). Julius Caesar reversed many of
tarch, Alc. 10.1; Cato Maj. 16.5), is based in part on the Pompey’s impositions, but still required tribute from
assumption that they live by impulse and for momentary Hyrcanus as high priest and ethnarch (Ant. 14.200-10;
pleasure, and are therefore highly susceptible to dema- cf. Smallwood 1981: 33-40). On the problem of calculat-
gogues: Ant. 4.36; 12.398. This language is even stronger ing the amounts involved under Hyrcanus—at any rate,
in the parallel at Ant. 17.204, 211: “They considered a burdensome portion of the annual produce—see Pucci
lawful and just whatever was likely to bring them plea- ben Zeev 1998: 86-87. On the various taxes collected
sure (ἡδονήν).” by Herod, see Schalit 1969: 262-98; at War 2.84-6 the
32
Simonetti (737-38 n. 87) distinguishes between the Judean delegation to Augustus will complain bitterly of
generalized praise, which he attributes to the mob, and his exactions. Although the taxation-census described by
the quite specific demands, which he thinks must have Luke as including Herod’s kingdom (Luke 2:1-5) brims
come from Jerusalem’s more cultivated circles, especially with familiar problems, there is slight evidence (Matt
Pharisees and Sadducees. He adds (738 n. 88) that such 22:17) that the tetrarchy of Galilee-Perea under his son
demands did not take into account the precarious posi- Antipas was liable to “taxes to Caesar”—and that pay-
tion of Archelaus as heir apparent to a client kingdom ment was a cause of discontent.
(cf. on the latter, Smallwood 1981: 105). Interpreting Whether client kings in general paid tributum is a
the story and reconstructing historical probabilities are vexed issue. Braund (1984: 63-6) thinks that they paid
different projects, however: Josephus plainly states that more or less regular indemnities to Rome (for the costs
it was the rabble (who had praised Archelaus) who now of installing the king), though not tribute as such; Schalit
made the demands, and the rabble whom he appeased. (1969: 272, 277) thinks that Herod collected a head tax,
Roman audiences would be familiar with the prospect which he handed over as tribute; Lintott (1993: 35) notes
of mob demands shouted at a leader, even where these War 1.399, according to which the younger Herod had
followed closely on fulsome shouts of praise; see the been appointed procurator for all Syria, which implies
note to “adulation” at 2.1. the collection of tribute. At 2.404-5 the εἰσφοραί con-
33
The contrast here between “lightening” (forms stitute the annual tribute for Rome from Judea—as an
of κουφίζω) the imposts (εἰσφοραί) and “burdening” imperial province, however, under an equestrian gover-
(βαρέω) the nation seems distinctively Josephan: War nor: 40 talents’ worth in arrears—as perhaps also War
1.428; 2.273; Ant. 17.204. If Archelaus was in a posi- 1.428, where Herod relieves the tax burden of various
tion to lighten or remove this burden, then it was either foreign communities. In support of understanding this
something he had imposed or a Roman requirement that, tax as tribute, the parallel at Ant. 17.204 glosses this as
the people assumed, he could alleviate or cover from “the annual tax-levies that they brought.” Mommsen,
other resources (as his father had covered levies on however (1887: 2.190-91), marshals compelling evi-
foreign cities). Even when he comes to write the often dence (from Caesar’s edicts in Ant. 14 and the census
anti-Herodian Antiquities, Josephus concedes that Herod under Quirinius in 6 CE) for his conclusion that Herod’s
8 book two

Golden eagle’s ees.35 And he, attending carefully36 to the rabble,37 readily gave the nod38 to everything.
destroyers 5 After that he offered sacrifice and had a festive meal39 with his friends.40 Already
mourned. Ant.
17.207 then, around dusk, quite a number of those who had deliberately chosen to incite revolu-

Judea enjoyed the unusually favorable situation of free- In the absence of penitentiary regimes, long-term
dom from both tribute to Rome and responsibility for imprisonment often indicated judicial neglect, corrup-
maintaining a Roman legion. Greek εἰσφορά certainly tion, or an inability to prosecute, and was increasingly
was a standard equivalent of Latin tributum (H. J. Mason hazardous for the one kept in chains. Although Josephus
1974: 41), though it also had other senses; at Ant. 3194 it does not explain the cause, the financial context here
indicates the temple tax. In Egypt it sometimes referred might suggest that some of these were debt prisoners
to a special tax (LSJ s.v. IIb). (on which Krause 1996: 150-55). “Release of prisoners”
34
Greek τὰ τέλη is even more vague than εἰσφοραί was part of the brighter future of God’s reign portrayed
(previous note). It seems unlikely, therefore, that Jose- in biblical and gospel traditions (Ps 68:6; 79:11; 102:20;
phus is trying here to indicate two distinct kinds of tax; 146:7; Isa 42:7; 61:1; Luke 4:18; Matt 27:15-18).
36
more likely, the vague nouns function synonymously, See the note to “attentiveness” at 2.2.
37
and the two options reside in the verbs—either lighten Josephus uses the same verb (θεραπεύω) for
this burdensome levy or do away with it altogether. Archelaus’ treatment of the mob that he had used for
Ant. 17.204-5 is different: these τέλη, as distinct from their flattery of him (2.2). This creates an ironic inver-
an annual levy, were applied to “public sales and pur- sion of proper political relationships. Contrast Cato the
chases” and were being collected harshly. For the pairing Elder, who pledged to cure Rome of its softness and
of εἰσφοραί and τέλη, as apparent synonyms, see IG II luxury by hard training, whereas his rivals put up can-
(2) 1.19.1369.287, 1241; SEG 24:94, 34; Justin, Apol. didates for office “who carefully attended to the rabble
27.2; Theophilus, Autol. 1.10; Pollux, Onom. 8.97 [a (θεραπεύοντας . . . τὸ πλῆθος [as Archelaus here]) with
fragment of Aristotle]. promises of lenient conduct, as though it [the rabble]
35
Greek ἀπολύειν τοὺς δεσμώτας. Although Herod’s demanded to be ruled softly and pleasantly” (Cato Maj.
sister Salome has quick-wittedly released the nobles put 16.4). Although the statesman must make an effort to
in custody by the king (1.666), sparing them an unjust win the trust of the people, as Josephus himself will do
death, the parallel (Ant. 17.204) claims that many had (War 2.569), he crosses a fine but crucial line when he
been put in chains by Herod and kept in that condition appears to be flattering the mob or pandering to them.
for long periods. Without that information here, Josephus Cf. Hands 1959; M. Roller 2001: 110.
38
assumes his audience’s understanding that—as always In one of many curious examples of paraphrase,
under perceived tyrants—many will have been impris- the parallel at Ant. 17.205 says only that Archelaus
oned unjustly (cf. 2.273; Ant. 20.215; Life 13). In the made no objection to the crowd’s demands, reserving
Roman world, incarceration was possible (a) for those in the verb ἐπινεύω (“give the nod,” used here) for a later
remand, awaiting trial, (b) between conviction and sen- context (17.208), in which he momentarily feigns agree-
tencing, and (c) in fulfillment of the sentence, though in ment with more extreme and particular demands (cf. 2.8
the early empire prison sentences were rarely employed. below) before unleashing his anger on the crowds.
39
State-sponsored legal custody (private custody was This spare, non-judgmental notice prepares for the
also known) was chiefly for (a) and (b), each of which accusation by Archelaus’ opponents, before Augustus,
could be ameliorated by the influence of patrons (cf. that he had merely put on a show of filial piety, mourn-
Ant. 18.202-4); (c) was usually obviated by corporal or ing by day but partying by night (2.29). It is part of
capital punishment, hard labor sentences, exile, or house Josephus’ art that although he provides a basis for that
arrest (Krause 1996: 64-91). Note the informal nature of judgment, he neither affirms nor denies the moral evalu-
Agrippa’s incarceration at Tiberius’ order (2.180): not a ation. Nor does he connect the following riots with this
sentence, it appears, but simply a means of keeping him behavior, as the accusers will.
40
out of the way indefinitely. Pliny’s correspondence with In Hellenistic and Roman usage, “friends” (φίλοι,
Trajan (Ep. 10.19-20) over the question whether publicly amici) of kings and governors comprised an inner circle
owned slaves (servi publici) should guard prisoners (ad of trusted advisors, whom they consulted for political
continendas custodias), as was customary (cf. the high advice; for the princeps, see Crook 1955; Millar 1977:
priest’s slaves at Luke 22:50, 56, 63), or whether this 110-22; and B. W. Jones 1992: 50-8. Josephus has men-
was a task for seconded soldiers (as with Agrippa, Ant. tioned Herod’s interest in choosing the “relatives and
18.203), shows how informal the situation was and sug- friends” (i.e., advisers) of his 3 other sons then in favor
gests that the need was chiefly connected with (a) and for the succession (1.460), and he often presents a ruler
(b). or governor striking an advisory meeting (συνέδριον)
book two 9

tion41 gathered and began a private mourning, now that the public one for the king had
ceased, bewailing42 those who had been punished by Herod on account of the golden
eagle that had been cut down—the one at the gate of the shrine.43 6 Now this mourn-
ing was not restrained, but piercing44 wails,45 an orchestrated46 dirge,47 and pounding48
rang through the whole city, as if for men who had—so they asserted—been point-
lessly destroyed by fire49 for the sake of the ancestral laws50 and the shrine. 7 They
kept crying out that it was necessary to avenge those men, by means of the ones who
had been honored by Herod: first, to terminate the high priest who had been appoint-
ed by him,51 for it was fitting that they should select someone more pious and pure.52

of such “friends”: War 1.537, 571, 620; Ant. 17.46, 301; “mourn over” at 1.9).
45
Life 79 [of his own practice as Galilean commander], Greek οἰμωγή. Yet another tragic term in Josephus
236, 368. That said, “friendship” (φιλία, amicitia) was (see note to “mourn over” at 1.9): it has 12 appearances
also a highly prized and much-discussed quality (Aris- in War , 11 in Antiquities.
46
totle, Rhet. 2.4.1380b-1381a; Konstan 1997), and Jose- Pelletier (2.201 n. 3) observes that the colorful
phus refers to such personal friends of his own (Life adjective ἐγκέλευστος (NB: only here in Josephus;
13, 418-19; cf. 180). It is impossible from this notice attested in literature before him only in Xenophon, Anab.
to discern the kind of friends that the ruler Archelaus 1.3.13; Cyr. 5.5.39; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.12.1) evokes
entertains here. The institution of “friends,” whether as the figure of the κελευστής, who kept the beat for row-
client kings or as political advisors, was according to ers. This is far from being a spontaneous outpouring of
Shaw (1993, 1995), a function of pre-state conceptions emotion, therefore.
47
of personal (rather than institutional or official) power Greek θρῆνος, another term redolent of Jeremiah
that operated broadly around the Mediterranean. Such and the lament theme (see note to “mourn over” at 1.9).
ancient ways of establishing powerful groups included a He uses this noun 8 times in War , 10 in Antiquities.
48
ritualized friendship (cf. Herman 1987). Probably beating of the breast, as LCL and M-B:
41
Or “those who had committed themselves to inno- κοπετοί, which occurs only here in Josephus and indi-
vate [politically]” (τῶν νεωτερίζειν προῃρημένων). See cates a kind of striking, is often used elsewhere of
the note to “revolutionary bloc” at 1.4: in political con- mourning women beating their breasts: Plutarch, Fab.
texts, the verb νεωτερίζω had since the time of Thucy- Max. 17.7; Nic. 13.11; Caes. 27.6; Ant. 84.4; Mor. 609b;
dides carried the sense of revolutionizing the state or Philo, Abr. 260.
49
constitution (νεωτερίσαι . . . τὴν πολιτείαν, 1.115.2) or Although πυρί (“by fire”) is missing in MSS LVRC
simply of rebellion (Thucydides 1.97.1, 102.3). Needless Lat, and Naber omits it (as also Pelletier), Niese favors
to say, “revolution” must be understood in its ancient MSS PAM in retaining it (so too LCL and M-B).
50
context, even if glossed as political upheaval (μεταβολή; In this narrative the phrase (οἱ πάτριοι νόμοι) most
cf. 2.259; Ant. 15.30) or radical innovation, such as immediately recalls the language of the “sophists” who
the rebels of 66-73 in Josephus’ narrative intend with incited their young students to tear down Herod’s eagle
their usurpation of the aristocracy and withdrawal from (1.649-50). For Josephus every nation has its own ances-
Roman rule. Modern conditions of post-industrial revo- tral laws (Ant. 1.166; 18.41, 53, 344; 20.75, 81; Apion
lution, whether theoretical or derived from the American, 2.155; cf. 2.144): this is generic, rather than special
French, Russian or similar revolutions, do not directly Judean, terminology (pace Schröder 1996). For Greek
apply and should not be read into this translation— usage see e.g., Oliver 1950; for Josephus, Mason 1991:
though there are doubtless insights to be gained from 100-5 and n. 90.
51
comparative study (e.g., Brinton 1952 with Rajak 1983: Josephus relates much less than he knows. In Antiq-
104-43). uities, which has a sustained interest in the high-priestly
42
This is the first occurrence in War of κατολοφύρομαι succession (e.g., 20.224-51), he will explain that after
(cf. 4.339; 6.102)—another component of the “lament” the affair of the golden eagle Herod not only executed
lexicon in this work; see the note to “mourn over” at the teachers responsible for the incitement (as in War
1.9. 1.648-55) but also replaced the serving high priest
43
The story is told in 1.648-55. For the distinction Matthias—as partly responsible for the action—with
between shrine and temple, see the note to “shrine” at Ioazar, the brother of Herod’s wife Mariamme II (Ant.
1.10. 17.164-65). This Mariamme and Ioazar were the children
44
Greek διαπρύσιος: another element of tragic of a famous priest named Simon, whose father had come
emotion in War (only: cf. 2.294; 6.309 and the note to from Alexandria; Herod had earlier appointed Simon
10 book two

(1.3) 8 Archelaus was becoming provoked53 at these things, but he withheld retaliation
in view of the urgency surrounding his departure; he feared that after making an enemy
of the rabble,54 he would then be detained by the commotion.55 He therefore tried by
persuasion rather than by force56 to calm down the revolutionaries,57 and having secretly
sent in58 the general,59 he kept appealing [to them] to desist. 9 This man went into the

high priest (23-5 BCE) in order to facilitate his mar- charismatic populists who can lead the “rabble” in any
riage to Mariamme (Ant. 15.320-22). This unelaborated way they like; cf. 1.67, 110, 648; 2.51, 55-6.
55
reference to Herod’s last high priest (Ioazar) is one of This word (κίνημα) is a key term from the pro-
many items that suggests Josephus’ knowledge, as he logue, used 15 times throughout War and once elsewhere
writes the War , of a fuller narrative approximating that in Josephus; see the note at 1.4.
56
in Antiquities. This alternative of coercion or persuasion (βία [or
52
Ant. 17.207, characteristically varying the language, ἀνάγκη] ἢ πειθώ) was an old favorite of Greek rheto-
has them seek a high priest who is “more concerned ric (Euripides, Suppl. 347; Thucydides 4.87.2; Plato,
with the legal tradition” (νομιμώτερον) and who is pure Apol. 35d; Pol. 296b; 304d; Gorg. 517b; Resp. 411d;
(rather than “purer”). The point seems to be that these 488d; Leg. 722b; Xeonophon, Mem. 1.2.10; Symp. 8.20;
“revolutionaries” reject the use of the high priesthood as Demosthenes, Alex. 17.23.6; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 25.2;
a patronage appointment in the king’s prerogative. Notice 30.14; 75.4; Plutarch, Thes. 24.3; Rom. 16.1; Sol. 16.2;
the detachment with which Josephus narrates Herod’s Them. 21.2; Tim. 19.3; Mar. 29.3; Appian, Bell. civ.
meddling with the high priesthood, in spite of his marked 3.6.42). Paradigmatic episodes include Themistocles’
concern with the institution: War omits many details, demand for funds from the Andrians, where he points
leaving intact Herod’s image as a powerful Judean king out that he is accompanied by two Gods, Persuasion and
and friend of Rome; in this work Josephus reserves his Compulsion (Herodotus 8.111), and Isocrates’ advice to
ire for the rebels’ appointment of a non-traditional high Philip II of Macedon: use persuasion against Greeks,
priest (War 4.152-61). force against barbarians (Phil. 10). The pair appears with
53
Or “furious”: passive of παροξύνω, a favorite word some frequency in Josephus: War 2.199, 562-63; 3.203;
in Josephus. Diodorus, the author who uses it next most Ant. 4.17; 17.10; Life 42, 370.
57
often, has about 77 occurrences, over against only a few This is the first occurrence of one of War’s dis-
each in Thucydides and Polybius, somewhat more in the tinctive usages: οἱ νεωτερίζοντες (literally “innovators”
orators; Josephus has 112 occurrences: 46 in War 1-6 or “changers”) to designate those fomenting revolt—
(not bk. 7), nearly a third of these (14) in bk. 2—the foreshadowing the major revolt against Rome that is the
build-up to revolt. In bk. 2 Josephus particularly favors main subject of the work. Cf. the artful construction on
the construction “At this (or these things), X became the same root in the prologue (1.4). The immediate ref-
provoked”: cf. 2.11, 305, 406. A complementary word- erence here is to 2.5: “those who had been planning to
group denotes “aggravation, irritation, indignation”: the incite revolution [against Archelaus],” Josephus will con-
noun ἀγανάκτησις occurs 16 times in War 1-6 (not in tinue to use this short-hand at War 2.407, 410, 417, 494,
bk. 7 or elsewhere in Josephus), the cognate verb 26 652; 3.108, 447; 4.114, 120; 7.4. No other extant ancient
times in War 1-6 (also not bk. 7) and 54 times in Jose- text employs the phrase so thematically, though the usage
phus. is suggested by Thucydides 1.97.1; 3.72.1; possibly Iso-
The parallel (Ant. 17.208) has Archelaus first indicate crates, Antid. 121; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.55.3, 59.1;
agreement with these demands (with the same verb as at Diodorus 12.7.1; 13.47.8; Philo, Spec. 4.127; Flacc. 48;
War 2.4 above), in spite of his anger; in the immediate Somn. 1.103. Cf. Firpo 1997.
58
sequel, however, he sends a general to try to talk the Of the 8 occurrences of ὑποπέμπω in Josephus, 7
people out of their position. are in War 1-2, where there is a pervasive atmosphere
54
Although only those who had been planning revo- of intrigue (1.492, 527; 2.8, 11, 27, 493, 618; also Ant.
lution would experience his retaliation, Archelaus fears 14.368).
59
that their appeal to the laws and the shrine (2.6) will have Although the identity of this “general” (τὸν
sufficient appeal to the masses that any punishment of στρατηγόν) is not immediately clear, the definite arti-
the rebels will bring a much larger public reaction. This cle and the fact that Josephus retains the word in Ant.
is a familiar scenario from the Hasmonean history and it 17.209, where he otherwise alters his language, suggests
will continue throughout the narrative: legitimate rulers that he intends someone specific. If so, it is easiest to
(Josephus does not necessarily endorse them wholeheart- assume (though uncertain) that Josephus has in mind
edly) constantly face the problem of demagogues and the general who had arrested the young men for cutting
book two 11

temple, but before he opened his mouth the insurgents60 drove him away with rocks, as
also those who went in after him to call for self-control.61 Archelaus kept sending in many
men, and they [the rebels] answered everything with rage;62 clearly, they were not going
to acquiesce if they should make any gains in their number.63
10 And indeed, with the onset64 of the Festival of the Unleavened65—among Judeans Civil strife at
it is called66 Pascha,67 and it hosts a huge number of sacrificial offerings68—and while Passover. Ant.
17.213

down the golden eagle while Herod lay mortally ill (War from one’s house (Exod 12:7, 19; 13:7; Deut 16:4), I
1.652). That would explain the revolutionaries’ hostile opt for a literal translation, not restricting the object to
reaction to him in 2.9, since they are partisans of those bread.
66
who had removed the eagle (2.6). It is unclear whether the present tense implies that
60
Greek στασιασταί, agents of civil strife (see notes Passover sacrifices continued at Josephus’ time, with-
to “insurgents” and “civil strife” at 1.10); interchange- out the temple. Ant. 2.313 (written in 93-94 CE) seems
able with “revolutionaries” in the previous section. more explicit: “For which reason, even still now we sac-
Although Josephus uses a variety of compounds for the rifice thus according to the custom. . .” (νῦν ἔτι κατὰ
agents of sedition (στασιώτης, e.g. Ant. 13.403; 17.216; τὸ ἔθος οὕτως θύομεν). See the evidence for post-70
στασιώδης, e.g. War 1.198; 2.91, 225; Ant. 17.314; Life sacrifice (and outside Jerusalem) adduced by Colautti
17; even once στασιοποιός, Life 134), as well as the 2002: 229-35.
67
participle οἱ στασιάζοντες, this is his preferred form. Greek πάσχα here, though φάσκα at Ant. 5.20;
61
Greek ἐπὶ σωφρονισμῷ. Although this form of the 14.25 (cf. Colautti 2002: 7). In Ant. 2.313 Josephus will
noun would come into broad use from the 2nd century explain the word as “passing over” (see Feldman BJP 3
CE, it is exceedingly rare in Greek before Josephus, out- on this passage). The atticizing Greek of the War (see
side Philo (Deus 182; Mos. 1.328; Leg. 3.193; Mut. 135; Introduction) normally avoids foreign terms, though here
Post. 97; Ebr. 29; Migr. 14; Virt. 75; otherwise, Aesop’s Josephus transliterates Aramaic ‫( אחספ‬cf. Hebrew ‫)חספ‬. This
fables [undated]; Strabo, Geog. 1.2.9; fragments of Aris- first reference to Passover in Josephus is important to
toxenus and Hippodamus). His younger contemporary War’s narrative for several reasons. (a) Structure: Jose-
Plutarch has it 6 times. This is the only occurrence in phus uses the word pascha only here—10 paragraphs
War ; cf. Ant. 17.210; 18.128; 19.16. into the second book—and at War 6.423—19 paragraphs
62
Archelaus’ pattern of engagement with hostile mass- from end of the second-last book. This reinforces the
es—repeated attempts at peaceful negotiation, resort- structural symmetry of the book (see Introduction),
ing to incremental force only when the mobs are out which is enhanced by other common language: here,
of control (cf. 2.11-12)—will also be used by Tiberius ἑορτῆς, ἣ πάσχα παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις καλεῖται; there,
Iulius Alexander as prefect of Egypt (2.493-94). It also ἑορτῆς, πάσχα καλείται. In both cases he also uses
anticipates the procedure of the Judean leaders (espe- “Unleavened [Bread]” (cf. 6.421), his usual name for
cially Agrippa II), appealing urgently for calm (2.320-21, the festival in the War. Both passages also emphasize the
343-405), but eventually being willing to resort to force large numbers of participants and sacrifices involved.
(2.334, 418-23). (b) Drama: Passover plays a basic role in the develop-
63
An ominous notice, anticipating the massive ment of War’s plot. At each new reference to the feast
increase in potential numbers that comes next. Josephus adds details: large and unruly crowds in Jeru-
64
This kind of phrase, with the aorist or perfect par- salem require special security (2.224, 244); 3 million or
ticiple of ἐνίστημι (here τῆς τῶν ἀζύμων ἐνστάσης more people, and the Syrian legate on occasion, come
ἑορτῆς), is Josephus’ formulaic way of indicating the to Jerusalem (2.280); the feast commemorates ancient
beginning of an appointed festival: 1.253; 2.42, 280; liberation from Egypt (4.402); fatefully, at the Passover
5.99; 6.423; Ant. 4.209; 5.172; 8.225, 230; 9.271; 11.109; of 70 CE there was a temporary lull in the siege and the
13.252; 14.285; 17.237, 254; 20.106, 208. Significantly, rebels opened the city gates to pilgrims (5.99); several
this usage is not found in LXX, post-biblical Judean omens of the temple’s destruction had been witnessed at
texts, or the gospels, though they refer often to the bibli- a Passover shortly before the revolt (6.290). Most impor-
cal festivals; it does occur in Nicolaus of Damascus (fr. tant: Fate selected Passover, when the city overflowed
99 l. 89; 101 l. 77 [Müller]), as later in Plutarch (Luc. with inhabitants, as the time to imprison them for the
10.1) and Herodian (Marc. 2.2.2). final catastrophe (6.428).
65
That is, Unleavened Bread; see following note. (c) Yet there seems a good deal of literary manipula-
Josephus, like the gospel writers, uses the adjective tion in all this. For example, the temple did not fall at
alone; since the Bible required all leaven to be removed Passover, but several months later; even if the Romans
12 book two

an uncountable crowd69 was coming in* out of the countryside70 for the [act of] worship,
those who were mourning the sophists71 had united72 in the temple, securing provisions73
for the civil strife.74 11 At this Archelaus became anxious,75 and before the disease76 could

had relaxed their siege during the spring feast of 70 CE down Herod’s golden eagle (1.648-55); cf. 2.5-6 above.
and the rebels had welcomed pilgrims, it seems anteced- All 8 occurrences of “sophist” (σοφιστής) in War apply
ently unlikely that visitors from other cities poured into to teachers who are inciters, trouble-makers, or disturbers
embattled Jerusalem in their usual numbers that year. of the peace: these teachers (1.648, 650, 655, 656, this
Josephus’ use of census figures for an earlier Passover passage; cf. Ant. 17.152, 155), Judas the Galilean (2.118,
(6.422-23)—doubtful any case—to prove the large num- 433), and Judas’ son Menachem (2.445). The only other
ber caught in that final catastrophe is not convincing. It occurrence of the word in Josephus makes clear that he
seems that he has highlighted Passover in both the struc- maintains the pejorative connotations made famous by
ture and substance of his narrative for thematic and sym- Plato (e.g., Prot. 311e-314e): he calls the anti-Judean
bolic reasons, a strategy that occurred also to the author writers of Egypt “reprobate sophists, deceivers of the
of John (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1; 19:14). young” (Apion 2.236). Although he does not label Justus
The parallel to this episode (Ant. 17.213-14) gives of Tiberias a sophist, his description of him matches the
a fuller account of Passover/Unleavened Bread, which type: see Life 36-42 and notes thereto in BJP 9.
72
reprises the definitive description in Ant. 3.248-51 (cf. Or “formed a conspiracy,” since συνίστημι has a
5.20; 9.263-64; 10.70-71; 18.29, 90; 20.106). Although causative sense and hostile connotation (2.55, 56, 59,
in the main description Josephus distinguishes Passover 80, etc.).
73
from Unleavened Bread, here and elsewhere in Antiqui- Or “nutrition for the sedition (or faction).” The
ties he equates them, as do 2 Chron 30:1-5, 13 and the meaning of Josephus’ Greek (οἱ . . . πενθοῦντες . . .
synoptic gospels (Mark 14:1, 12; Matt 26:17; Luke 22:1, συνειστήκεσαν τροφὴν τῇ στάσει ποριζόμενοι) may
7). See Feldman in BJP 3: 302-4 and Colautti 2002: not be as clear as it seems. The parallel (Ant. 17.214)
144-52. says plainly that those mourning the teachers were sup-
68
This appears to be a terse abbreviation of something plying provisions (also τροφή) to the insurgents, and
like the version in Ant. 17.13-14, which explains the sig- were not ashamed to beg for them. Yet Thackeray seems
nificance of Passover and elaborates that more sacrifices bemused that anyone would take the language of nour-
are offered then than at any other festival. One of only 3 ishment so literally: he translates “procuring recruits
pilgrimage festivals, Passover was evidently considered for their faction” (cf. Vitucci: cercando proseliti per la
the most important, and the most likely to be attended sommossa) and attributes Ant. 17.214, where food is
by pilgrims from far and wide. This circumstance, and clearly envisaged, to a misunderstanding on the part of
the requirement that the roasted lamb for each family be the Thucydidean literary hack who assisted Josephus’
fully consumed before the next day (cf. 2.30 below: pil- source (n. b ad loc.).
74
grims bring in their sacrifices for slaughter), along with Or “sedition.” The definite article is used (ἡ στάσις),
the other Passover sacrifices, justifies Josephus’ remark apparently, because the sedition in question has been
about an unparalleled volume of sacrifi ce. See Exod anticipated (with different words) in 2.1, 5. The label is
12:1-12; 34:23-25; Lev 23:4-8; Num 9:1-14; 28:16-20; of course the narrator’s. As discussed in the note to “civil
Deut 16:1-8. strife” at 1.10, this word has many senses, all bad, and
69
Since this is the only occurrence of the rare expres- that versatility is likely one reason why Josephus chose
sion λαὸς ἄπειρος in Josephus, and it is found in frag- it as a Leitmotif. Here the general sense of “civil strife”
ment of Nicolaus (Müller FHG 3, fr. 101.403), whereas yields to sedition or uprising against the Herodian heir.
Josephus normally prefers the standard πλῆθος ἄπειρος See also the note to “civil strife” at 2.418.
75
(24 occurrences), reserving λαός for more respectful Note the parallel “at this” construction at 2.8,
uses (see the note to “citizenry” at 2.1), it may be that exposing the sudden change in this ruler’s emotions,
he preserves here a vestige of his source. from anger to fear in the face of the masses; Josephus
70
The parallel (Ant. 17.214) adds plausibly “and from hints here at themes (e.g., the power of the masses and
abroad”: Passover was an important pilgrimage festival demagogues, the instability of monarchy) that will drive
(Deut 16:16). much of his work.
71 76
These are the teachers (Judas and Matthias, as the On sedition (στάσις) as political disease, see the
parallel Ant. 17.214), who incited their students to cut note to “diseased” at 1.4.
book two 13

spread through the whole mob, he secretly sent in*77 a tribune78 with a cohort,79 having
commanded them to subdue the leaders of the sedition80 by force.81 At this the entire
throng became* provoked82 and, throwing rocks, destroyed83 most of the cohort; the tri-
bune barely escaped,* wounded.84 12 After that, as if nothing awful85 had happened, they
turned back to offering sacrifice. Archelaus’
soldiers kill
To Archelaus, the rabble appeared no longer restrainable86 without carnage,87 and so 3,000. Ant.
he let loose* his entire army on them: the infantry through the city in close order88 and 17.217.

77
See the note at 2.8. 451 times); he uses it 289 times in his works, 90 of these
78
“Leader of a thousand” (Greek χιλίαρχος). In the in War , 25 in bk. 2.
84
Hellenistic, phalanx-based army, modeled on Alexan- This is one of many episodes to come in which
der’s, this officer commanded 1024 men. But the term ordinary Judean citizens overcome professional military
was also the Greek equivalent to the Latin for one of units, whether royal or Roman: e.g., the story of Ces-
6 senior legionary officers: the tribunus militum (H. J. tius’ escape from Judean rebels after the near destruc-
Mason 1974: 99-100, 163) who, in spite of the title, did tion of his Twelfth Legion at War 2.551-55. The model
not have direct command of a unit within the legion for Josephus’ language of narrow escape here (ἐκφεύγει
(Webster 1985: 113; see further 2.335 below). It was τραυματίας μόλις) may be Polybius’ description of
common for client kings to imitate Roman military the consul Claudius Marcellus’ son (καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
organization (Keppie 1998: 141), and Shatzman (1991: Κλαυδίου τραυματίαν , μόλις καὶ παραδόξως τὸν
198-210) makes a convincing case that King Herod’s κίνδυνον διαπεφευγότα; 10.32.6). This immediately
army was modeled on Roman lines—a situation that precedes a programmatic passage in which Polybius con-
Archelaus would have inherited. Thus, although this man demns the consul himself (who lost his life) for expos-
was a senior officer (in status, if not in age) of Archelaus’ ing himself to danger, against all military principles
army, we cannot describe his precise function; evidently, (10.32.6-33.6).
85
he was trusted with a force of cohort strength. Partly by his use of the ambiguous δεινός (terrible,
79
Greek σπεῖρα. In the earlier Hellenistic armies, this awful; awesome, wonderful), Josephus maintains his nar-
unit was one of the 4 256-strong units of that consti- rator’s distance. Does he mean to blame the rebels for
tuted the 1,000-strong χιλιαρχία. It was also, however, returning to sacrifice after killing, or obliquely to rec-
the standard Greek equivalent for Latin cohors (H. J. ognize the casual heroism of the Judean citizenry, who
Mason 1974: 85, 163), one of the 10 constituent parts could so calmly return to worship after dispatching a
of a legion, each comprising 6 centuries of about 80 professional military cohort? Both conclusions match
men (except the first cohort, which had 5 centuries of prominent themes in the War , and this sort of ambiguity
double—i.e., 160-man—strength). The standard legion- continues throughout the work. At any rate, this return to
ary cohort thus included 480 men, the first cohort 800. sacrifice prepares for Archelaus’ further attack (2.13).
86
Auxiliary cohorts and those of allied client kingdoms, Or simply, “no longer restrained.” Josephus uses 3
such as Herod’s, are usually thought to have been about καθεκτ- forms in War (and nowhere else), once each:
500-strong (Keppie 1998: 63-7; Gilliver 1999: 18-22), here καθεκτός; καθεκτικός of the Essenes at 2.135;
though at 3.68 Josephus will describe the auxiliary καθεκτέον of constraints on the historian (to suppress
cohorts involved in the Judean war as comprising either emotion) at 5.20.
87
600 infantry + 120 cavalry or 1,000 infantry. Archelaus’ desire to avoid slaughter (φόνος),
Given that in this case the commander is called a authoritatively declared here by the narrator, will be
tribune (see previous note), it seems possible that this utterly ignored by the opponents of his succession: 2.30
was a double cohort of 1,000 men, as the later Roman (cf. 2.34), 89. A similar scenario will play out in Alexan-
cohorts in Jerusalem may also have been (see 2.444 and dria under Tiberius Alexander at 2.493-94, where some
note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52). of the vocabulary here is employed again.
80 88
See the note at 2.10. The adverb/adjective ἀθρόος, rendered “en masse”
81
In the parallel (Ant. 17.215), Archelaus directs in non-military contexts (e.g., 2.170, 174), is distrib-
that the leaders of the sedition are to be brought before uted throughout the 7 books of War for a remarkable
him. 45 occurrences, against only 12 appearances in all of
82
See the note and the very similar construction at Josephus’ later works. It is a characteristic term of this
2.8. narrative, perhaps highlighting the martial instincts of
83
This (διαφθείρω) is one of Josephus’ preferred even ordinary Judeans (cf. Spartans). Josephus tends
euphemisms for “kill” (along with ἀναιρέω, appearing to cluster occurrences, sometimes ironically in relation
14 book two

the cavalry up through the plain.89 13 Suddenly attacking the various groups90 who were
sacrificing,* they destroyed* about 3,000; the remaining mob they thoroughly scattered
into the nearby hills. But Archelaus’ heralds were following, directing each one to go back
home. So they all went away, having deserted the festival.91
Archelaus (2.1) 14 Now he himself, along with his mother and his friends Poplas,92 Ptolemy,93 and
leaves for Rome. Nicolaus,94 went down to the sea.95 As procurator96 of the royal [holdings]97 and steward98
Ant. 17.219
of his household [property]99 he had left behind Philip.100 15 Salome101 also went along,

to the Roman military (1.81, 84; 2.170, 174; 6.80, 82, 324-430. For his biography of Augustus, see Duttlinger
86). 1911; Bellemore 1984; and Malitz 2003; for Nicolaus
89
Josephus generally shows a keen awareness of mili- in general and on the Judeans, Wacholder 1962, 1989;
tary realities, for example (as here) noting the kinds of Stern, GLAJJ 1.83-97.
95
terrain best suited for cavalry (flat, open spaces) and To Caesarea Maritima (cf. 2.16), the port city built
those more suited to infantry (close or restricted quar- by Archelaus’ father Herod, for passage to Rome.
96
ters, steep terrain). Cf. Life 116, 397; Frontinus, Strat. Greek ἐπίτροπος: bailiff, procurement or revenue
2.9, 11. officer. This is an intriguing notice for several reasons.
90
Josephus’ phrase θύουσιν ἑκάστοις evokes the sit- First, it seems that Philip did not have a standing role
uation of Passover, at which family heads brought their as his brother’s “procurator”; the sentence implies, and
lambs to the priests for slaughter (see note to “sacri- Ant. 17.209 confirms, that he was put in charge only
fices” at 2.10). It connects with his earlier remark about while Archelaus was traveling abroad. The title is either
the volume of sacrifices (2.10) and with the claim of an informal label, its parallel with 2.16 entirely coinci-
Archelaus’ opponents, that he slaughtered the would-be dental, or Josephus chose it ironically in preparation for
sacrificers with their animal victims (2.30). 2.16. Second, Herod himself had reportedly been des-
91
The parallel (Ant. 17.218) adds a harsh moral eval- ignated procurator of all Syria, to whom other Roman
uation concerning the rebels’ fear, in spite of a rashness procurators were accountable, by Augustus in about 20
grounded in their lack of cultivation (or culture, educa- BCE (War 1.399). Archelaus may have hoped to maintain
tion, training). In War Josephus is more restrained with or recover that function with his ancticipated accession
his moral assessments, in keeping with the promise of to the throne. Finally, however, at 2.16 (shortly below),
the prologue (1.2-3, 6, 9-11). we meet a procurator of Syria already in place, Sabinus,
92
Otherwise unknown, though named Ptollas in the who has designs on Herod’s royal estates and property,
parallel, Ant. 17.219 (where, however, MSS AME and and whose presence justifies Philip’s role as the protec-
Latin support πολλοὺς, “many”). Whereas Ptollas would tor of Archelaus’ property. Philip is not normally the
likely be a Greek name derived from Ptolemy (cf. Solin procurator of Archelaus, but he has been left to fill that
2003: 232), Poplas would presumably have a Latin deri- role against the mischief of Sabinus.
97
vation, from popularis (countryman) or populus (people, Greek τὰ βασίλεια can have many senses, from the
poplar tree). palace grounds, in the narrowest sense (M-B, Thackeray
93
Ptolemy has been introduced in 1.280, 473 as “the LCL), to the whole sphere of royal interests, or the realm
most honored friend” of Herod, a status made clear by his (Pelletier). The context seems to suggest something in
role at the king’s death (1.667-69): he reads the codicil the middle: the royal properties and their wealth.
98
that nominates Archelaus king of Judea. Antiquities adds Greek κηδεμών forms a natural pair with the pre-
a number of details: Herod had placed him in charge of ceding ἐπίτροπος: the two often appear together, some-
the royal finances (16.191), and he had played a role in times interchangeably (Demosthenes, Naus. 12; Arius
court affairs and intrigues (16.197, 257, 321, 330). Didymus, Phil. p. 87.2 [Mullach]; Philo, Congr. 118;
94
Nicolaus (ca. 64 BCE-ca. 5 CE?) was a highly Somn. 2.43; Ios. 74). The various titles that Josephus
educated Peripatetic philosopher who served as Herod’s gives Essene officials include these two (2.125, 134).
closest aide. He wrote among other things a 144-volume See also H. J. Mason 1974: 151.
Universal History (the 10th-cent. Constantian Excerpta 99
Greek τῶν οἰκείων has many possible senses,
preserve some of the early volumes), a Life of Augustus, depending upon whether it is personal (οἱ οἰκεῖοι) or
an ethnographic collection, an autobiography, and several impersonal (τὰ οἰκεῖα), and upon whether the sense is
lost tragedies, comedies, and works of philosophy. He “of the household” (from οἶκος) or “personal, proper”
was Josephus’ most likely source for this account of the (as distinct from “official royal”). So Thackeray and
contest over Herod’s succession, in which Nicolaus was Pelletier put Philip in charge of Archelaus’ “personal
a player. See notes to 1.574, 629, 637-38. The surviving interests”; M-B make him responsible for the family
fragments of Nicolaus’ work are collected in Jacoby IIA: property; there seems no reason why the word could
book two 15

together with her children,102 as well as the nephews and in-laws of the king,103 under the
pretense of supporting Archelaus with respect to the succession, but in truth so that they
could denounce him for his unlawful actions104 in the temple.105
(2.2) 16 Sabinus,106 the procurator of Syria,107 met up* with them at Caesarea,108 while

not include members of the household—relatives and of Judean rebels, therefore, it is an important part of
slaves alike. The parallel (Ant. 17.219) seems to make a Josephus’ narrative that those violations (though in no
clearer distinction: in his absence, Archelaus entrusted to way excusable) occur in connection with severe provoca-
Philip “everything pertaining to both the household and tion from powerful figures.
105
the rule (or government)” ([Φιλίππῳ] τὰ πάντα ἐφεὶς Since bloodshed in the temple and the resulting pol-
καθίστασθαι τοῦ οἴκου καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς). Yet in this lution will be a prominent theme of War (4.151, 241-42,
case, inheritance of the “house” of Herod was the thing 323, 388; 5.397; 6.99, 110), the massacre in the temple
to be decided by Caesar (2.83), and so the distinction (above) is the most likely referent here. Certainly, both
seems more for rhetorical effect than a clear delineation Roman and Greek officials would understand a complaint
of distinct properties. about such massive temple pollution. Cf. Parker (1983:
100
This is Archelaus’ step-brother, roughly the same 104-43) on earlier Greek views. On Roman attitudes
age, perhaps a year younger (both about 22-23), son of toward temples, even foreign ones, see for example Livy
Herod and Cleopatra of Jerusalem (War 1.562, 602, 646). 29.17-19 (the Locrians’ assertion, fully accepted by the
Philip has been named in a codicil to Herod’s will as Roman Senate, about the goddess Persephone’s determi-
tetrarch of Trachonitis and other districts to the N and E nation to take vengeance on violators of her sanctuary);
(1.668), a position that he will eventually receive (2.94-5, 35.51.1-3 (impious Greeks attack Romans in Delium,
167-68). Unlike Antipas (2.20), however, Philip is not sacred to Apollo [192 BCE], though it was a sacred place
portrayed as an initial rival for the throne. He ends up and under the “law of sanctuary” [iure sancto], which
traveling to Rome at Varus’ discretion, to support the protects people from attack in sacred places). Appian
case of Archelaus against Antipas (2.83). (Bell. civ. 4.2.8) has the members of the second trium-
101
This sister of the deceased king (her dates are ca. virate, determined to punish Caesar’s assassins, invoking
57 BCE to 10 CE; cf. Ant. 18.31) was introduced in the “holy ground of the Senate-house,” the affront to the
1.181, after which she has been highly active in court Gods, and the resulting pollution. Since Archelaus has
affairs and intrigues. For an assessment of her life and emphatically forsworn the use of royal authority (2.2),
connections, see Kokkinos 1998: 177-92. his actions may also be presented to Roman offi cials
102
A remarkably innocent statement, since one of her as illegal in that they exceeded his mandate. Of gov-
sons, the otherwise unknown Antipater, will rise to give ernors and client kings the Romans expected chiefly
the major speech against Archelaus’ right of succession the maintenance of order, and Archelaus will eventu-
(2.26). ally be dismissed (2.111) for his failure in this respect.
103
In theory, these might include (a) the sons of These issues and others will appear in the complaint by
Herod’s deceased brothers Phasael, Joseph, and Phero- Salome’s party in Rome (2.32).
106
ras, (b) the sons of his sister Salome, (c) the parents and This is the first mention of the Syrian procurator
siblings of his wives, and (d) the wives and husbands of (see next note) in Josephus, who is our only source for
his siblings (cf. Kokkinos 1998: 147-245). In practice, him. His name (cognomen) was one of the most popular
the group will have been a small subset of the survivors; in the Roman world, with some 1452 attestations (1716
presumably, the nephews in question seem to be dif- including derivatives) known by the mid 1960s (Kajanto
ferent from Salome’s sons (separately mentioned). We 1982: 30). The name had originally signified roots in the
have no other evidence concerning these fellow travelers; Sabine region of Italy, NE of Rome. But by the time of
Ant. 17.220 speaks more vaguely of Salome’s family and this episode, Sabines had enjoyed Roman citizenship for
other “relatives” of the king. nearly 3 centuries, and since the name was transmitted
104
Or “for the things criminally undertaken” (περὶ τῶν from parents to children it had largely lost its geographi-
. . . παρανομηθέντων). The next occurrence of the verb cal significance (Kajanto 1982: 50-51).
107
παρανομέω (2.32) will also recall Archelaus’ actions in Greek ἐπίτροπος is the standard equivalent of the
the temple. Of the verb’s 9 occurrences in War, 5 are Latin procurator. Sabinus’ fuller title is given in the par-
in bk. 2, indicating the unlawful actions of Archelaus allel, Ant. 17.221: “the procurator of Caesar (cf. Latin
(alleged), Florus (2.317, 333), and Noarus (2.483)—all procurator Augusti) for affairs in Syria” (Καίσαρος
of whom harm the Judeans. Although the last 3 occur- ἐπίτροπος τῶν ἐν Συρίᾳ πραγμάτων). See the note at
rences (4.355; 5.414; 7.34) all concern the wrongdoing 2.14.
16 book two

going up109 into Judea to take Herod’s property under his protection.110 But Varus,111 whom

Every Roman province had a procurator, normally of names, such as τῇ παραλίῳ Καισαρείᾳ or τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ
equestrian rank, responsible for managing the emperor’s θαλάττῃ Καισάρειαν (War 1.80; 7.20). Sometimes the
property, revenue, and expenses; although he worked ancients called the site Caesarea Stratonis (cf. Καισάρεια
under the governor (i.e., proconsul in senatorial prov- ἡ Στράτωνος), recalling the original Strato’s Tower (CIL
inces; in the others legatus Augusti pro praetore), he was 10.867; Ptolemy, Geog. 5.16.2; 8.20.14; Ps-Clement
accountable directly to the princeps: see H. J. Mason formulaically [Hom. 1.20.2; 4.1.1; 13.7.2]; Epipha-
1974: 48-9, 142-43; Lintott 1993: 122. Sabinus was the nius, Mens. pond. 513); after Hadrian’s renaming of the
financial procurator for Syria under P. Quinctilius Varus. province, often Caesarea Palaestinae (Καισάρεια τῆς
By mentioning this figure soon after Archelaus’ “procu- Παλαιστίνης; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.15.1; cf. 2.10.3).
rator” Philip (2.14), Josephus highlights the competition The Hebrew name of the site (the town was captured
between the royal and imperial officials, as well as, in by Alexander Janneus in 103 BCE) seems to have been
the next two sentences, tensions between the emperor’s Migdal Sar (‫)מגדל שר‬, which may have endured for one
procurator and the powerful senatorial governor. part of the city around the harbor (Stieglitz 1996). Fol-
For the various kinds of (chiefly equestrian) procura- lowing the war, Vespasian would refound the city as a
tor and issues of jurisdiction, see Pflaum 1950, 1960-61, special colony (Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesare-
1982, with Millar 1963; Brunt 1990: 163-87. During nsis) as a reward for its services, though apparently with-
Claudius’ principate (41-54 CE) the growing tension out the usual settlement of veterans (Isaac 1998: 94-98).
between financial procurators and senatorial gover- In the narrative of War 2 Caesarea becomes increas-
nors was addressed by the princeps, who established ingly important as a scene of simmering, then exploding,
that procurators had independent jurisdiction over their conflict between the Greco-Syrian and Judean residents:
administrative affairs. He also began to restyle the eques- e.g., 2.230, 236, 241, 266-270, 284-292, 457.
109
trian governors of provinces such as Judea, who had been Lacking a developed map mentality, the ancients
called “prefects” (praefecti), procuratores. Whatever else mainly used “up” and “down” with reference to topo-
may have motivated these changes, they seem to have graphical elevation and/or the symbolic status of a city
had a centralizing function in binding procurators to (such as Rome). No matter where they were coming
himself as his agents (Levick 2001: 48-50). See below, from, Judeans normally spoke of “going up” to Jerusa-
2.117 and notes. lem, because it was in the hills and because it was the
108
For Josephus’ earlier descriptions of this important chief and holiest city: 2 Kgs 16:5; 18:17; 23:9; 24:10;
city, see War 1.80, 156, and esp. 408-15; also the note at 2 Chron 2:16; Ezra 1:3, 11; 7:7; Isa 7:1, 6; Mic 4:2; 1
§ 52 in BJP 9; for archaeology and scholarly analysis see Macc 6:48; 13.2; Matt 20:17-18.
110
Appendix A to BJP 1a and Levine 1975a; Ringel 1975; Sabinus’ portfolio as procurator consisted chiefly
Vann 1992; Raban and Holum 1996; Holum, Raban, of managing the princeps’ properties, slaves, tenants,
and Patrich 1999; Richardson 2000; Bernett 2007: and revenue; but it was hardly possible to separate that
98-126. Herod’s magnificent foundation on the site of patrimonium from the provincial treasuries (fisci), which
Strato’s Tower (on which see 2.97 below and note)— were also in the emperor’s control (see note to “treasur-
more than 50 miles (80km) N of a line drawn due W ies” at 2.111). Herod had not bequeathed his estate to the
from Jerusalem—had become the provincial base for princeps, but only 1,000 talents (1.646); his strenuous
Roman prefects and procurators following their arrival efforts to anoint an heir imply that this successor would
in 6 CE. Beebe (1983) argues that the city was from the inherit the estate. With Archelaus’ fall (2.111), however,
beginning created to further Roman strategic aims: a the dynasty’s wealth will be confiscated to the imperial
proximate provincial center and check against Jerusalem, treasury. As the following sentences make clear, Herod
free of Jewish nationalism; a safe port for grain clip- had kept most of his royal fortune in mountain fortresses
pers; a bulwark against Parthia; and on all these points a (see the note to “high forts” in 2.17) that were extremely
safer alternative to Antioch. On the logistical advantages difficult of access.
of Caesarea for the Romans, see also Roth 1999: 175. Sabinus’ motives here are not perfectly clear. The
Bernett (2007: 98-126) compellingly explores Herod’s language of “protection” or “holding in security” (ἐπὶ
careful configuration of the city as a leading centre for φυλακῇ) suggests that he wants to assume responsibility
the cult of Augustus and Livia, with the largest temple for the property, pending Caesar’s decision about the suc-
of its kind during the princeps’ lifetime. cession, rather than leaving it in Herodian hands where
The common modern designation “Caesarea Mar- it might suffer depletion (cf. Smallwood 1981: 106). The
itima,” though helpful in distinguishing the city from situation is complicated, however, by the governor Varus’
others of the same name, obscures the variety of ancient opposition to Sabinus and firm support of Archelaus’
book two 17

Archelaus had sent for with urgent pleas, arrived just then and kept him from going
further. 17 In order to oblige Varus, therefore, at that point Sabinus neither pressed on
to the high forts112 nor shut the treasuries of Archelaus’ father’s113 property to Archelaus;
he kept promising that he would wait until Caesar’s decision, and he passed some time
at Caesarea. 18 But as soon as those who were impeding him left—the one [Varus] had Sabinus
attempts to seize
departed for Antiocheia,114 and Archelaus had sailed to Rome—he rushed with haste115 Herod’s assets.
to Hierosolyma. He took possession* of the royal goods116 and then, sending for both the Ant. 17.222
stronghold-commanders and the treasurers, kept trying to track down the accounts of the
property and seize the high forts.117 19 The guards were certainly not ignoring Archelaus’
instructions, however: they stood fast, protecting each [post], and attributing this protective
action to Caesar rather than to Archelaus.118

claim to hold the property until Caesar should decide with 3 legions, one of which he will leave there against
(2.17), and by the following story (2.17-19), which the possibility of sedition. Antioch on the Orontes, near
appears to indicate that Sabinus’ motive was greed and the N extremity of the province, was founded in 301
personal gain (cf. πλεονεξία at 2.41). We are left to BCE by the Macedonian Seleucus I Nicator, along with
assume that Sabinus tried to seize the opportunity of an Seleucia, Laodicea, and Apamea, in honor of his father
allied king’s death for his advantage on the pretext of Antiochus. After Pompey’s arrival in 64 BCE, it became
keeping the property safe. the seat of Roman administration of the new province of
It is odd, and Josephus presents it as scandalous, that Syria, and after Augustus the base of the legatus Augusti
Sabinus should have expected to get away with such a (see A. H. M. Jones 1937: 227-95; Millar 1993: 236-56;
highly visible seizure of enormous assets. Yet the case Pollard 2000: esp. 277-79): currently Varus. According
of the British Iceni in 61 CE (recent for War’s Roman to Josephus (War 3.29), the city was third in size and
audience) may provide a parallel: the procurator Catus magnificence, next to Rome and Alexandria. Although
Decianus reportedly oversaw the massive and illicit Antioch was a staging ground for campaigns to the E and
appropriation of King Prasutagus’ property by Roman S, there is no clear evidence that the city itself housed a
centurions, an action that laid the ground for the famous legionary garrison (Wheeler 1996: 230-31; Pollard 2000:
revolt led by the king’s widow Boudicca (Tacitus, Ann. 278-79).
115
14.31-32; Brunt 1990: 166). See further 2.41 and notes The expression διὰ τάχους was not common in
there. ancient authors. Although used occasionally by Plato,
111
Publius Quinctilius Varus, infamous to Josephus’ Demosthenes, Aristotle, and others, it was a Thucydide-
Roman audience for his later catastrophic loss of 3 anism (18 occurrences), picked up by Diodorus (2 times)
legions in the Teutoburg Forest of Germany (9 CE), is and especially Dionysius (15 times) before Josephus,
first mentioned in the prologue (1.20; see note there). At who has it 12 times, only in War (cf. κατὰ τάχος at
the time of the events described here, the former consul 2.616 [“in haste”]).
116
(13 BCE), was imperial legate (legatus Augusti pro prae- Or “royal property or precincts,” therefore “pal-
tore) in the important province of Syria. He has recently ace” (so Thackeray, for τὰ βασίλεια). In any case, the
been introduced into the narrative (1.617-40) as a judge royal goods that Sabinus seized in Jerusalem would pre-
in Herod’s trial of his son Antipater. sumably have been kept in the Herodian palace in the
112
Herod’s principal mountain forts (cf. also 4.173 upper W of the city (cf. 1.402), since they are distinct
for the equation) were Cypros at Jericho, Herodium from the temple treasures. Therefore, taking these goods
(1.417-21), Hyrcania (1.161, 167, 364, 664), Machaerus would have required control of the palace.
117
(1.161, 167, 171-72; 7.163-209), and Masada (1.237-38, This sentence is chiastic: [a] (commanders of)
264-66, 286, 292, 293-94, 303). For the relevant archae- strongholds, [b] treasurers; [b’] accounts, [a’] high forts.
ology see Appendix A to BJP 1a. Evidently (cf. 2.18), Thus, the strongholds are linked with the high forts, on
Herod’s proper treasuries were not in Jerusalem, but dis- which see the note at 2.17.
118
tributed among these nearly impregnable fortresses—a This is portrayed as a shrewd move on the part of
wise move on his part, since the temple, though a strong- the guards: whereas Archelaus has no confirmed status
hold in its own right, had frequently been raided (Apion yet, a loophole that Sabinus tries to exploit, Caesar’s
2.80-84). orders could not be contravened. Though frustrated for
113
That is, Herod’s. the moment, Sabinus will try again (2.41), once he has a
114
According to 2.40, in a peculiar flashback, Varus larger force at his disposal and Varus is again absent.
goes to Antioch at this point and returns to Jerusalem
18 book two

Antipas’ (2.3) 20 Meanwhile Antipas,119 who in turn was contending over the kingship, went off
entourage into the fray*:120 he reckoned the will in which he himself had been inscribed as king121
leaves for Rome.
Ant. 17.224 to be more authoritative than its codicil.122 Salome had promised earlier that she would
take his side,123 as had many of the relatives sailing with Archelaus.124 21 He was also
winning over their mother125 and Ptolemy the brother of Nicolaus, who seemed to be a
balancing weight126 because of Herod’s trust, for he in fact had been most honored among
his friends.127 Most of all, however, he trusted Irenaeus128 the advocate,129 on account of
his forcefulness with words.130 On this basis he evaded those who were admonishing him

119
Antipas (b. ca. 25 BCE) was introduced at 1.562 as Archelaus (2.24, 64, 69). Nevertheless, when Josephus
the son of Herod and his Samarian wife Malthace, there- comments on Herod’s trust (πίστις) of this Ptolemy, and
fore full brother of his rival for the throne, Archelaus. especially when he claims that he was the “single-most
Both sons (with Philip—2.14, 83) had been educated honored among Herod’s friends” (γεγόνει γὰρ δὴ τῶν
in Rome (Ant. 17.20-21), returning together near the φίλων ἐκείνου τιμιώτατος), one cannot help but note
end of Herod’s life (War 1.602). See notes at the earlier the correspondence with Archelaus’ Ptolemy, who was
references and Hoehner 1972; Kokkinos 1998: 228-35, called in War 1.473 “the single-most honored friend” (ὁ
266-69; Jensen 2006, 2007. In one version of Herod’s τιμώτατος τῶν φίλων) of King Herod, in precisely the
will Antipas was named as king, to the disadvantage of same language. Cf. Ant. 16.257, where he and another
his older brothers (1.646), though in the final version man are “the most faithful friends (οἱ πιστότατοι)”
(1.664, 668) he was designated tetrarch with Archelaus of the king. Is it possible that Herod had two single-
as king of Judea. most honored and trusted friends named Ptolemy, and
120
That is, he also went to Rome, as the parallel at that Josephus neglected to mention this one, Nicolaus’
Ant. 17.224 spells out, for the hearing to settle Herod’s brother, before now—in both War and in the extensive
will. revisions of Antiquities? Rather more likely: Josephus
121
The will described in 1.646 had indeed designated has either confused his source material or, in the interest
Antipas king, though it was itself a relatively late devel- of writing a compelling story, deliberately manipulated
opment: earlier versions had named Antipater (1.451), it to build up this Ptolemy’s credentials.
Antipater, Alexander, and Aristobulus (1.458-60), and 128
The Greek name means lit. “peaceful one.” Here is
Antipater again (1.550-52, 573). Moreover, Josephus another puzzle: this orator, on whom Antipas is said to
describes the final amendment, which made Antipas rely so exclusively, will not appear again in the follow-
only tetrarch and Archelaus king, with the word “again” ing narrative; the major speech in favor of Antipas will
and the verb ἐπανορθόω, suggesting a correction or instead be given by Antipas’ relative, Antipater (2.26-33),
emendation (1.664). Nevertheless, he will also speak of
who appears only in that episode. The same switch from
these last changes as codicils or supplements to the will
Irenaeus to Antipater will occur in the Antiquities paral-
(1.667-68), leaving a possible ambiguity for his literary
lel (17.226, 230-40), which adds the detail (17.226) that
audience, to be rhetorically exploited by the contenders
Irenaeus was the one who most insistently urged Antipas
in the narrative.
122 to consider a bid for the kingship.
Herod’s final amendment to his will (naming 129
Archelaus as king) came at 1.664, shortly before his Or “orator,” possibly “teacher of rhetoric” (Greek
death. ῥήτωρ). In the educational system of the Greco-Roman
123
This is the first we hear of Salome’s offer. élite, the rhetor stood at the top level, taking advanced
124
Many of these relatives will testify against Arche- students from age 14 or 15 for as long as 6 years (often
laus at 2.33. less), until they had acquired the rhetorical formation
125
Malthace (see note to Antipas at 2.20), mother of that was necessary for success in public life. From Jose-
both Antipas and Archelaus. phus’ time we have a book of preliminary exercises in
126
Note Josephus’ use of the same metaphor (ῥοπή— rhetoric (the Progymnasmata by Aelius Theon), a manual
the weight in a scale) of persons at 2.52 below. produced by an advanced teacher of rhetoric in Rome
127
For “friends” see the note at 2.4. Ptolemy’s iden- (Quintilian’s Education of the Orator), and relevant
tity is a puzzle. He seems to be someone other than papyri from Egypt. See Marrou (1956: 194-205, 284-91)
the Ptolemy recently mentioned (2.14, 16), given the and, for the E empire and papyri, Cribiore 2001: 56-7.
130
explanation that this man was Nicolaus’ brother (some- Greek διὰ δεινότητα λόγων. Josephus uses the
thing not mentioned of the other, though he and Nico- technical language of rhetoric for describing the third
laus have been prominent in book 1) and because the genus or style: in addition to the fine (ἰσχνόν, sub-
other Ptolemy is and will remain a decided partisan of tile) and the medium (μέσον, ἀνθηρόν, medium) is the
book two 19

to yield to Archelaus in view of seniority and the codicil.131 22 And in Rome the eager
support of all the relatives, for whom Archelaus was an object of hatred,132 switched to
him.133 Each one was longing for self-government,134 preferably,135 supervised by a Roman
general,136 but if this should fail, [each] wanted Antipas to be king.137

grand (ἁδρόν, βαρύ, vehemens, sublime, grandiloquum), class), these passages appear to intersect largely with
which ‘Demetrius’ (Eloc. 36) divides between excellent his own outlook. In the sweeping context of Antiquities,
(μεγαλοπρεπής) and forceful (δεινός), without clearly he is able to connect this form of government with the
distinguishing between these two. See Lausberg 1998: best ancient Judean traditions (Ant. 6.36), even when
472-77. This Irenaeus, then, was especially talented in under foreign—Persian and Macedonian—domination
giving speeches of gravity and depth. Curiously (see pre- (11.111); cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b.
vious note), Josephus opts not to include (i.e., compose) D. R. Schwartz (2002) offers a complicated analysis
Irenaeus’ oration in defense of Antipas. according to which, although the terms “freedom” and
131
That is: the final adaptation of the will (1.668-69) “autonomy” were interchangeable at Josephus’ time of
had named Archelaus as king; as the oldest of the sur- writing, he and his “assistants” first used them with an
viving brothers (1.646), he might normally have been allegedly classical distinction (viz., autonomy is lim-
expected to inherit the throne, had he faced no other ited and granted by a greater power, whereas freedom
impediments (see notes to 1.31 below). is absolute), in War; then in the Antiquities parallels,
132
The Greek syntax indicates that all the relatives which Josephus took over more directly from Nicolaus,
hated Archelaus, not merely that all those who hated he followed the tendency of his own time toward inter-
him switched to Antipas. One might have doubts that changeable usage, though even there he used a different
the mother of the two hated her son Archelaus, however, source in immediate juxtaposition to Nicolaus, which
since Josephus has just said (2.21) that Antipas gradually kept the meanings separate. Besides its inherent com-
won her over. plexity, this reconstruction appears to run aground on:
133
The “switch” is necessary because many of the War 2.53 (below), where it is the rebels who desire to
relatives had sailed to Rome in Archelaus’ entourage take “autonomy” for themselves forcibly; the problem
(2.20). See further 2.33, however, where “most of the of audience understanding (if indeed Josephus uses lan-
relatives” will indeed testify against Archelaus. guage with private or anachronistic meaning, how would
134
Greek αὐτονομία: literally “[the state of living by] his audience understand?); the routine diction-variation
one’s own laws.” It may seem contradictory to speak of between War 2 and its Ant. 17 parallels (i.e., the many
autonomy under Roman supervision, but it was not for other changes of wording cannot be attributed to such
many ancient thinkers. Plutarch favored, or accepted, a differences of meaning, or to sources); and Josephus’
combination of external Roman rule of the Greek cities consistent concern for “traditional” aristocratic-élite gov-
(Mor. [Praec.] 814c-e) with internal self-government ernance under foreign rule, much as Plutarch and Dio
(Mor. [Praec.] 814e-816a): it was, after all, the Roman favored. In War, especially, “freedom” is a key term and
emperor Nero who had “made the Greeks free and auton- its relation to “slavery” (i.e., Who is really free, and who
omous” (Flam. 12)—though that status did not continue is a slave—to whom?) is an issue of ongoing debate
under Vespasian. Plutarch’s view, much like Josephus’, (e.g., 2.345-401 with notes). According to Josephus and
was that Roman external control quashes internal fac- his respectable peers, autonomy and true freedom are
tionalism, sedition, and tyrannical ambition, thus freeing found in protection from Judean would-be monarchs
the people to observe their own laws in peace, under (tyrants), through Roman supervision of the local aris-
their own leaders (cf. Swain 1996: 145-83). In War tocracy, rather than in absolute political independence
1.170, accordingly, the Judean people have reportedly vis-à-vis foreign powers.
135
welcomed the arrival of the Romans, in the persons of The adverb προηγουμένως occurs only here and
Pompey and Gabinius, to free them from the always- at 1.517 in Josephus. It seems to be a relatively new
contested native monarchy, which is there replaced by a formation, not found in the classical authors, but once
native “aristocracy” and self-rule—under Roman super- each in Theophrastus, Diodorus, and Strabo, then with
vision. Again in 2.80, 91, a Judean delegation (supported increasing frequency: Philo (5), Plutarch (6), Epictetus
by 8,000 expatriate Judeans in Rome) will ask Augustus (5), Galen (5), Athenaeus (2).
136
that their nation be annexed to the province of Syria and Or “commander.” Though the Greek στρατηγός
supervised by a Roman governor, so that they might can have many senses (H. J. Mason 1974: 155-63), I
have “autonomy” and freedom—viz., from the immi- translate as “general” for consistency where possible—
nent tyranny of Herod’s quarreling sons. Given Josephus’ since that is the primary sense in the War: the term seems
preference for aristocracy (i.e., government by his own important to Josephus, who claims it for himself and his
20 book two

(2.4) 23 Sabinus138 was also collaborating with them towards this end, by means of
Caesar letters denouncing Archelaus before Caesar while praising Antipas greatly. 24 Having
convenes marshaled139 their complaints, Salome and her group entrusted them to Caesar; after this,
council. Ant.
17.229 Archelaus wrote up the summary points140 concerning his own rights and sent along* both
his father’s signet-ring and the statements141 via Ptolemy.142 25 Now after Caesar had first
considered143 in private the claims of both sides, the magnitude of the kingdom,144 the
amount of the revenue, and over against these the number of Herod’s progeny,145 and when
he had also read in advance the letters from Varus and Sabinus concerning these things,146
he assembled* a council147 of the Romans who were in office,148 in which for the first time

fellow-commanders (2.562; 3.28, 340, 359, 386, 390, deliberately opted for a vaguer word here, a more spe-
393, 400, 436) as counterparts to the Roman generals cific one in Antiquities.
142
(1.8; 3.2, 97). The governor (legatus) of Syria was also a This picks up 1.669, where Herod’s will instructed
supreme general, with 3 or 4 legions under his command. Archelaus, his heir-designate, to convey his wills and
137
This sentence has an optative verb in the prota- seal-ring to Caesar as proof of Herod’s support. Arche-
sis, with εἰ (future less vivid condition), but a simple laus follows his father’s example of trusting Ptolemy
tense (imperfect) in the apodosis, where we might have with the seal-ring and wills (cf. 1.667). For Ptolemy, see
expected another optative with ἄν. Many explanations the note at 2.14.
are possible (e.g., since the first part of the sentence and 143
All 4 occurrences of the middle-passive προσκέπτο-
apodosis are not supported by the context, they may have μαι in Josephus fall within War 2 (2.31, 396, 598). They
been an afterthought), but the net effect is to strengthen cannot come from a single source, however, because the
the main point: in the present circumstances, they wanted period covered includes Josephus’ own career in Galilee.
Antipas as king. The active voice προσκοπέω occurs twice elsewhere,
This passage anticipates, ironically, later struggles in however (War 4.320; Ant. 18.321), and once in War 2
War for “freedom”. For example, at 2.442-243 the reb- (2.257).
els articulate clearly their disgust with Manaem: having 144
For τὸ μέγεθος τῆς βασιλείας, assuming Caesar’s
defected from the Romans out of a love for freedom, early impression that it might be too risky to give one
they will not tolerate this home-grown tyrant over them! of these men the whole of Herod’s kingdom—a reading
Here the relatives find their best hope for freedom in supported by the following reference to income, and by
“self-government” under foreign rule, or at the very least Caesar’s ultimate decision to divide the territory (2.93-
under a more benign monarch. 100); cf. Thackeray and M-B. One might as easily trans-
138
See the note at 2.16. late “the importance of the [this] kingship/realm” (so
139
Although συντάσσω might mean simply “com- Pelletier; Vitucci has a suitably ambiguous “la grandezza
pose” or “compile” in Josephus, it was also the custom- del regno”), referring in part to the strategic position of
ary term for drawing up battle lines. I translate it thus the client king selected, very near the border with the
in the context of the palpable build-up to a confrontation Parthian empire.
in Rome. 145
Apparently, then, Caesar is already contemplating
140
Like “marshaled” in the same sentence, Greek what will be his final decision: partition of Herod’s king-
κεφάλαια in such a context is rhetorical terminology, dom and wealth among the family (2.95-100).
for the headings of an argument: cf. Dionysius, Comp. 146
According to the parallel in Ant. 17.229: concern-
1; Strabo 1.2.31; Josephus in the prologue, 1.30 (with ing the amount of property and revenue involved. The
note); cf. Lausberg 1998: 42, 107, 174, 182. point appears to be about Caesar’s wish to prevent any
141
Or “papers” (Thackeray LCL) for τοὺς λόγους in one person from becoming too powerful.
the known Greek MSS, presumably referring to Herod’s 147
Greek συνέδριον, which in Josephus as in other
wills and related documents. The Latin has rationes Greek writers normally refers to any sort of committee,
administrationis (“administrative accounts”), and Thack- council, meeting or assembled body; it does not have
eray plausibly suggests that the translator found τοὺς the fixed meaning of the famous Aramaic loan-word
λογισμούς in his Greek text (“accounts, reckonings,” as ‫( סנהדרין‬Sanhedrin), used in rabbinic literature (e.g., the
at Ant. 17.228) in his Greek text. Reading “accounts” Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin) for an established court in
would make good sense of the context, in which the Jerusalem. In Rome and the Greek East it was common
next sentence has Augustus pondering the extent of the for rulers to summon ad hoc advisory councils or com-
kingdom and its revenue. Yet the principle of varying mittees, comprising dignitaries, relatives, and friends (cf.
diction equally supports the possibility that Josephus 2.81), though final decisions always rested with the ruler
book two 21

he also seated Gaius,149 the son adopted150 from Agrippa151 and Iulia his daughter,152 and
he gave over* the floor153 to them.154

(War 1.537, 559, 571, 620, 640; Ant. 12.103; 14.167-81; eastern nobles in Rome all the more significant. Fur-
16.357-67; 17.46; 20.200, 203, 216-17; Life 236, 368; ther, his status as deliberately groomed heir highlights
McLaren 1991; Sanders 1992: 472-81). In his earlier the inevitable problem with monarchy (i.e., succession),
writings Josephus formulaically speaks of “assembling” which is the issue of the larger narrative: Herod’s monar-
or “striking” such a council (ἀθροίζω συνέδριον), as chical succession woes are thus ironically intertwined
here (cf. War 1.571, 620; 2.81); in his later writings he with Augustus’, and Josephus develops a theme that
will prefer the verb καθίζω (“seat”): Ant. 20.200, 202, he will pursue with vigor in the Antiquities (cf. Mason
216; Life 236, 368. 2003a, 2008b).
150
In this case, the council functions as the consilium This is the only occurrence of the adjective θετός
principis, a semi-official body of friends (amici) and in Josephus.
151
advisers, summoned as needed, especially for specific Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (ca. 63-12 BCE), life-
legal cases, that was established by Augustus (Dio 52.15) long friend and confidant of the young Octavius/Octavi-
and continued by his successors (Suetonius, Tib. 55); for anus (later “Augustus”), has not figured prominently in
a survey of 1st-century developments see Crook 1955: War (contrast the parallel Ant. 15-16): it is an index of
31-55. In Josephus’ time at Rome, following the scandals Josephus’ assessment of audience knowledge that he can
of Nero’s later years (including the indictment and execu- mention him without introduction (cf. 1.118, 400 and
tion of his formerly indispensable counselors) and the notes). After a remarkable military-naval career and hav-
chaos of 69, the consilium principis had been restored ing acquired political power nearly equal to that of the
to an important role; its continuity through successive princeps, he divorced his second wife to marry Augustus’
monarchs contributed much to the political stability of only daughter Iulia in 21 BCE. See Suetonius, Aug. 16,
the Flavian period. 25, 29, 35, 42, 63, 64, 66, 94, 197; Velleius Paterculus
148
Note the very similar language in the continuation 2.59; Dio 48.20, 28, 49; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.96; and the
of this hearing at 2.81. autobiography by Nicolaus of Damascus, preserved in
149
Gaius Iulius Caesar (20 BCE-4 CE) appears fragments (Jacoby IIA: 324-430 for Nicolaus’ fragments,
only here in the War. Bearing the same name as the including those of his biography of Augustus; important
famous dictator Iulius Caesar, he was the oldest child of fragments on Agrippa include those from Constantine
Augustus’ associate M. Vipsanius Agrippa and daughter VII Porphyrogenitus, De virtutibus et vitiis 1.326, 7, 13,
Iulia (see following two notes). Gaius and his younger 23, 356.24; 2.308.10, 312.1, 351.11; De insidiis 156.9,
brother Lucius were both adopted by their grandfather 11, 30).
152
in 17 BCE, a sure sign of Augustus’ hope that one of Augustus’ only daughter, by Scribonia, Iulia (39
them would succeed him. The story time here was a BCE-14 CE) was raised by the princeps and his new
highly auspicious moment in Gaius’ life: only the year wife, Livia Drusilla (herself known after her adoption
before (5 BCE) he had assumed the toga of manhood into the gens Iulia, in 14 CE, as Iulia Augusta; Jose-
(virilis) at age 15 and been designated future consul; phus often calls her retrospectively by the more honor-
from that time he was reportedly given the honorary ific name; cf. 2.167-168). Although the younger Iulia
title princeps iuventutis by the equestrians. In 1 BCE appears only here in War, Josephus assumes that her
he would be given consular authority to negotiate with name needs no introduction. At about age 14 or 15 she
the Parthian king over the disputed throne of Armenia, married her cousin Marcus Claudius Marcellus, but then,
where the Parthians had installed their man, Tigranes. after his death (23 BCE) and a period of widowhood, she
Although young Gaius apparently resolved the dispute married M. Vipsanius Agrippa in his early 40s (see pre-
diplomatically, naming a mutually agreeable successor vious note). She bore Agrippa 5 children, one after his
(Ariobarzanes) as Tigranes had died, he would not live death; the oldest was Gaius (see note to his name above).
to inherit from Augustus. Seriously wounded in 2 CE, A year after Agrippa’s death (12 BCE), Iulia married
he died of his wounds in Lycia, in February, 4 CE. See the future emperor Tiberius, but the notorious failure of
Suetonius, Aug. 26, 29, 64-5, 67, 93; Tacitus, Ann. 1.3; that marriage and subsequent charges of adultery led to
Dio 54.8, 18; 55.9. her banishment by Augustus in 2 BCE, which her birth
Josephus appears to expect an audience that is well mother voluntarily shared. She was never reconciled with
informed about famous personalities from the Roman Augustus or Tiberius, but died in exile soon after Augus-
past, who should know that Gaius’ sphere of activity had tus, in 14 CE. See Suetonius, Aug. 63-5; Dio 53.27; 54.6;
been in the E, making his attendance at this meeting of 55.9-10; Macrobius, Sat. 2, 4, 6-7; Tacitus, Ann. 1.35.
22 book two

Speech of (2.5) 26 At this point Antipater the son of Salome155 took his place—of those oppos-
Antipater ing Archelaus, he was the most forceful in speaking156—and began denouncing* him,
against
Archelaus. Ant. asserting that whereas by his words Archelaus was here contending for the kingship,
17. 231 by his actions157 he had long ago become king; now he was dissembling158 within the
hearing of Caesar—the arbiter of the succession,159 for whom he did not wait! 27 At
least [they should ask] whether following the death of Herod he had: secretly sent in160
agents161 to fasten the diadem on him;162 presumptuously sat upon the throne163 and used
the title of164 king; rearranged units of the army and granted promotions;165 28 further,

153
Josephus has λόγος (“word, speech”). flict is much older (Homer, Il. 9.443; 19.242 for μῦθος/
154
I.e., to the disputing parties: Archelaus, on the one ἔργον; Aesop, Fab. 22.1-3; commonly in Thucydides,
hand, and his opponents (Salome, her son, Antipas, and e.g. 1.39.2, 69.5, 128.3, 144.2; 2.65.9; 4.67.1, 70.2, 87.1;
others) on the other. What follows is a rhetorical tour de 7.48.3; 8.46.3).
158
force on the part of Josephus, allowing each side a seem- Greek κατειρωνεύεσθαι. Compounds of εἰρων-,
ingly clever and compelling case. Though it is entirely the root from which English ultimately derives “irony,”
likely that the historical event witnessed rhetorical dis- are relatively frequent in War (1.84, 209; 2.26, 29, 153,
play, speeches in historical works are normally crafted 298, 522; 4.127, 152, 279, 334, 340, 342; 5.233, 242,
by authors for their characters and do not simply convey 531; 7.270). Antiquities-Life has only 3 occurrences: Ant.
what was actually said; see the note to “as follows” at 15.279, 374; Life 367. This language is closely related
2.344. to that for “figured speech” (built on the σχῆμα- root:
155
That this Antipater should be given such a major 2.29, 259, 603; 4.154, 265, 336, 340). The presence of
speech is a surprise, since he has been introduced only such language is related to War ’s (tragic-) ironic charac-
incidentally in bk. 1, as the beneficiary of an arranged ter (see Introduction); as part of that world of discourse,
marriage with one of Herod’s daughters by Mariamme Josephus is alert to word plays and dissimulation, not
I (1.566; cf. Ant. 17.22), named Cypros (Ant. 18.138), least on the part of the rebel leaders (cf. the references
and then anonymously among Salome’s children who from bk. 4 above). See Mason 2005a.
159
accompanied her to Rome (2.15). He will not appear See 2.2 and notes.
160
in the narrative again. The audience must simply accept See the note at 2.8.
161
Josephus’ implication that he was the lead advocate for Perhaps coincidentally, the only other occurrence
Salome’s (and Antipas’) side against Archelaus because of this word (ἐγκάθετος) is in a nearly symmetrical posi-
he was the ablest orator. tion at the end of War : 6.286.
156 162
See the note concerning Irenaeus’ “forcefulness At 2.3 (see notes there), the only other reference to
with words” at 2.21. This is indeed a powerful speech as the episode in this work, Archelaus insists that he rejected
portrayed, citing both what Archelaus actually had done, the diadem when the soldiers “were fastening it on him”;
albeit maliciously interpreted, and things that he might the present participle may mean that they intended or
credibly be charged with, before the distant Caesar, as a began to do so. In any case, we have here an example of
rash young man with a claim on kingship (as Ant. 17.233 the way in which a single incident might interpreted rhe-
elaborates). The literary audience knows, however, that torically in opposite ways: Archelaus claims that when
the seemingly authoritative voice of the narrator has por- others spontaneously fastened the diadem on him, he
trayed Archelaus as trying desperately to avoid both the rejected it; his opponents focus on the act of fastening,
appearance of presumption and the application of force, and claim that they did this at his direction. In the fuller
the very things of which he stands accused here, if only parallel (Ant. 17.230-39), this accusation by Antipater is
for pragmatic reasons (2.3, 8, 11-12). omitted. That may be because Josephus has changed the
157
This contrast between words (λόγοι) and deeds earlier story (17.202), such that (Archelaus reports only
(ἔργα) is common in Josephus (War 1.288; 5.361, 457; that) the soldiers had been eager to fasten the diadem on
6.200; Ant. 2.253, 272; 3.306; 5.289; 10.39; 15.281; him, but he declined the offer—removing any basis for
17.47, 220, 230; 18.177, 260; 19.63, 101, 156; Apion the interpretation here.
163
2.12, 169-72, 182, 241) and among moral philosophers According to 2.2 he had indeed greeted the crowds
of his time (Seneca, Ep. 20.2; Dio, Or. 68, 70.3; Epic- from a raised golden throne. Cf. Ant. 17.232.
164
tetus in Arrian, Diatr. 3.26.8-23; Lucian, Herm. 9-19). The basic meaning of χρηματίζω has to do with
It supports the Platonic contrast between seeming and money and business or public affairs (“conduct business,
really being, which Josephus develops throughout (see negotiate, deliberate”), and MSS MLVRC may assume
the note to “titles” at 2.2), though the words/deeds con- this sense when they supply ὡς: “conduct affairs, delib-
book two 23

whether he had capitulated166 to the populace in everything, whatever they expected to

get—“from a king”167—, even releasing those who had been confined168 by his father
on the most serious charges.169 “Now he comes* here, to claim from his master170 the
shadow of kingship, of which he has already seized for himself the substance, 171 thus
making Caesar lord not of the actual affairs172 but only of the titles!”173 29 He further
tried to attach scandal to174 him to the effect that even in the case of the mourning for his
father he was dissembling,175 during the day posing176 in the mask177 used for grief, but at
night getting drunk to the point of rowdiness178—in which regard, he [Antipater] said,179

erate as though a king.” LSJ observes, however, that epic (where the body is the corpse) and/or tragedy, the
from the time of Polybius (5.57.2; 30.2.4) the verb also contrast between mere shadow and real substance is rhe-
comes to be used in the sense of using or appropriating torically and philosophically resonant. The notion of an
a title, and so to be styled as such (cf. 2.488 below), insubstantial shadow as something frequently mistaken
especially in the case of kings. Although that seems to for reality famously goes back to Plato’s cave analogy
be the meaning here, Archelaus’ activities also suit the (Resp. 514a-517c). Such language was widely used, not
older sense. least in early Judean (Philo, Post. Cain. 112, 120; Migr.
165
This charge is the only evidence of Archelaus’ Abr. 12.4-5; Virt. 181) and Christian (Col 2:17; Heb
reform of the military (cf. Ant. 17.232); it was not men- 8:5; 10:1) literature of a Platonist bent. This language
tioned in the earlier narrative. reinforces Josephus’ ongoing contrasts between seeming
166
By adding the preposition κατά to the narrator’s and being; see note to “titles” at 2.2.
172
earlier verb ἐπινεύω (2.4), Josephus’ Antipater further Possibly “the state, commonwealth.” See the note
strengthens its pejorative sense. to “republic” at 2.168.
167 173
Archelaus has done this (2.4), apparently as a tem- See the note to “titles” at 2.2; also Plato, Crat.
porary measure to maintain the peace while he sought 390e and, for the juxtaposition of “body” and “name,”
the kingship from Caesar. But Antipater interprets it as a Euripides, Orest. 390.
174
demagogic posture already adopted for his kingship. Of the 5 occurrences of προσονειδίζω in Jose-
168
Or “those who had been bound/detained” (τοὺς . . . phus, 3 are in War 1-2 (1.313; 2.29, 396) and the other
δεδεμένους). See the note to “detainees” at 2.4. two are in Ant. 16.69, 209. Although this concentration
169
According to 2.4, Archelaus agreed in general might incline us to suspect that the word comes from
terms to releasing “the prisoners.” The seriousness of Josephus’ source for most of this material, Nicolaus
the crimes for which they were imprisoned may be of Damascus, Nicolaus cannot be responsible for War
Antipater’s rhetorical hyperbole. In the parallel (Ant. 2.396, set in the speech of Agrippa II.
175
17.233), Antipater accuses Archelaus of releasing the See the note to this word (κατειρωνεύομαι) at
prisoners held in the hippodrome. Presumably, this refers 2.26: Antipater crafts a complete picture of deception
to the notables whom Herod had incarcerated in Jer- and dissimulation.
176
icho’s hippodrome shortly before his death, leaving the This is the only occurrence of ἐπισχηματίζω in
command that they should be executed when he died Josephus, and the form may well be his coinage. (LSJ
in order to ensure nationwide mourning (War 1.660; and the TLG corpus furnish only this example, aside
Ant. 17.175-78). But according to both War (1.666) and from one in the 4th-cent. CE Oribasius: Eun. 3.12.2.)
Antiquities (17.193), Salome and Alexas had hurriedly Why should he use this term here? First, its uniqueness
released those prisoners before publishing the news of highlights Antipater’s alleged rhetorical ability. Second,
Herod’s death. If we are to understand (in Antiquities) in rhetorical theory, the language of “irony” (εἰρωνεία),
that Antipater charges this release—plainly a virtuous already used twice in this speech, was closely related to
deed—to Archelaus as though it were a crime (for ignor- that of σχῆμα (Latin figura). See Demetrius, Eloc. 291;
ing his father’s wishes, perhaps), then the orator would Quintilian, Inst. 9.1.14, 2.65; Josephus, War 4.326-34;
be there be making an entirely mischievous claim. Even Mason 2005a.
177
here in War , it seems from the foregoing narrative that This vivid language (τὸ πρόσωπον) supports the
criticism of Archelaus for releasing prisoners held on allegation that Archelaus is in effect no more than an
very serious charges is a rhetorical stretch. actor-pretender (ὑποκριτής).
170 178
For Caesar as master (δεσπότης) see the note to The actor Archelaus allegedly switches from tragic
“master of everything” at 2.2. grief to comic buffoonery in one day. We have encoun-
171
Or “snatched for himself the body” (ἧς ἥρπασεν tered night-time carousing, in similar language, among
ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα). Over and above its literal sense, the cabal in King Herod’s court: 1.570 (cf. Ant. 17.265,
which may be meant to evoke the worlds of Homeric there changed to a retrospective confession). As far as
24 book two

the disturbance of the rabble180 had resulted from their indignation181 over such things.
30 But he concentrated182 the entire verbal contest183 on the mass184 of those slaugh-
tered185 around the shrine,186 who, though they had come for the festival,187 had been
savagely butchered188 along with [those of] their own sacrificial offerings.189 And there

the audience knows, however, this charge of hypocrisy portray, is not equal as a criterion to an alleged challenge
andcarousing is mainly fabricated by the speaker. Jose- of Caesar’s dignity.
184
phus has specified in 2.1 that Archelaus both observed This is the same word (τὸ πλῆθος), extremely
the customary 7-day mourning period and provided the common in Josephus, that I elsewhere render “rabble,
traditional banquet for the public. There is just enough, mob, horde” (as in the previous sentence). That he can
however, in the artful notice of a subsequent evening use this word of a pile of corpses reflects its inhuman
feast with his friends (2.4) to allow a potential grain of connotations.
185
truth to the accusation—and keep the literary audience But see the note to “carnage” at 2.12: the seem-
uncertain of the truth. ingly authoritative narrator claims that this was what
179
Verbs of saying are often codes for deception in Archelaus had wished to avoid.
186
Josephus (i.e., he said this, though it was not so)—even See the note at 1.10.
187
for his own literary character: War 2.605, 611; 3.197; I.e., Passover (2.10-11). This passage casually
Life 22, 39, 71, 128-30, 141, 263, 273-74, 282, 287-88, introduces a major theme of War : that festivals typically
291. There is no other evidence in the text that the turn into violent occasions. Cf. 2.42 (“indignation”), 73,
masses found Archelaus hypocritical or inadequately 254-55, 280, 425, 514-17; 4.401-2. Price (2001: 218-25)
pious toward his deceased father; indeed, the people were argues that Thucydides mentions festivals chiefly to
reportedly ill-disposed toward Archelaus’ father, Herod, anchor incidents of conflict among Hellenes.
188
and their demands to the son are for the repeal of the Or “had their throats cut savagely.” Antipater’s
father’s measures. appeal conveniently ignores the serious provocation that
180
The highest priority of the provincial statesman confronted Archelaus, with the annihilation of his cohort
(perhaps nearly 500 soldiers) by the mob (2.11-12).
under Roman hegemony was understood to be keep-
Greek ἀποσφάττω (note Attic spelling) is a remark-
ing the masses quiescent (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 816a-
ably common verb in War (37 occurrences; 21 in the
824d). The accusation that Archelaus failed in this basic
much longer Antiquities, which also deals extensively
responsibility anticipates the astonishingly brief account
with animal sacrifice). By contrast, it appears only a few
of his reign and removal (2.111).
181 times in classical authors (e.g., Herodotus 3, Thucydides
Or “irritation, aggravation.” All 16 occurrences of
2, Xenophon 13, Polybius 7). In spite of its many pas-
this word (ἀγανάκτησις) in Josephus are in War 1-6,
sages on sacrifice, the LXX lacks this verb (it is at 4
reflecting the pervasive mood here of upset and provo-
Macc 2:19), and Philo has it only twice. It begins to
cation. See the note to “provoked” at 2.8; for growing appear frequently in Hellenistic narrative, however: con-
irritation in bk. 2, see 2.42, 170, 175, 293. spicuously in Diodorus (65) and Plutarch (61).
182
The verb ἐναπερείδω occurs only here in Jose- In Josephus the verb often (as here) helps consolidate
phus. Though widely used by late-antique and medieval an ironic link between human and animal slaughter (see
authors, it is rarely attested before his time (Polybius “sacrifice” and note at 2.197), especially at the appointed
22.13.2—also in the context of a massacre [of the feasts and particularly at Passover (4.402). Although not
citizens of Maronea]; Diodorus 31.11.3; 2 Macc 9:4; as thematically developed in other authors, the same con-
Philo, Spec. 4.107; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [San. praec.] 126e, nection—slaughtering a human victim at a temple built
[Apoph. Lac.] 236d). The rarity of the double-prefixed for animal sacrifice—is occasionally made (e.g., Diodo-
form supports Antipater’s image as clever orator, con- rus 3.6.4; Plutarch, Galb. 27.4). The phrase “savagely
firmed by the surrounding language. butcher” (ἀποσφάττω ὠμῶς) occurs again at 2.454,
183
Josephus appears to choose this phrasing (τὸν though it does not seem to have been a cliché. This is,
ἀγῶνα τοῦ λόγου παντὸς ἐναπηρείσατο), evoking a however, another parallel with Philo’s language (Legat.
formal competition in literature, tragedy, or rhetoric, 87).
because Nicolaus’ later speech will devote itself almost 189
As Thackeray and Pelletier note, this darkly ironic
entirely to the issue of Caesar’s dignity (2.34-6), which is observation about sacrificers being slaughtered along
only a preliminary argument for Antipater (2.26-8). The with their animal victims has a close parallel in Luke
implication is that Antipater, though a renowned orator, 13:1, which describes Pilate’s (later) mingling of Gali-
makes a crucial mistake in structuring his case. Even leans’ blood with their sacrifices (τὸ αἷμα Πιλᾶτος
this massacre of thousands, which he will dramatically ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσίων αὐτῶν). Slaughter of persons
book two 25

was such a mass190 of corpses piled up191 in the temple192 that even a foreign war without
heralds,193 had it arrived suddenly,194 would not have piled up so many.195 31 Of course, it
was because his father had already considered196 just this savagery of his that he [Herod]
had never judged him worthy of even the hope of royal [office],197 except when, his mind
more severely afflicted than his body198 and incapable of sound reasoning, he did not even
know whom he was writing into the codicil as successor199—this, when he could not find
fault with the one named in the will200 that he had written while his body was sound,

along with animals (see previous note on “throats cut”) 87; Legat. 119. See also Plutarch, Arist. 1.5; Mor. [Mul.
is a basic theme in War, enhanced by the association virt.] 253f, [Suav. Epic.] 1095f; Lucian, Alex. 25.
194
between the catastrophes that culminated in 70 CE and Or simply “having broken out.” The point seems to
the calendrically ordered celebration of feasts involving be the lack of prepared defense against a ferocious war
animal slaughter. that suddenly arrives and therefore takes a great toll.
190 195
See the note to the same word earlier in this sec- This is an ironic statement, given that this work is
tion. mainly about a foreign war (with Rome) that allegedly
191
Of the 14 occurrences of σωρεύω in Josephus, cost more than 1 million lives (6.420), against the 3,000
13 are in War , usually in connection with the piling up killed here (2.13). The irony is driven home by the sym-
of corpses or bodies. The construction, “there was such metrical parallels, in the latter half of book 6 (note the
a multitude of corpses piled up that. . . ,” recalls 1.338 close verbal similarity): “And around the altar a multitude
(after one of Herod’s victories). The parallel at 2.497 is of corpses was piling up, and much blood flowed down
significant because of the other verbal parallels between the steps of the shrine. . . ” (6.259); “A horrible stench
this episode and that one, under Tiberius Alexander in from the bodies greeted the [Roman] invaders, such that
Alexandria. many immediately drew back, though others penetrated
192
On temple pollution see note to “temple” at 2.15. further under the influence of greed, trampling over piled
For the distinction between sanctuary and temple, see the up corpses” (6.431) .At 5.569 Josephus claims that some
note to “shrine” at 1.10. 600,000 bodies of the indigent were thrown out of the
193
Josephus’ Antipater thus modifies “war” 3 ways: city in a single episode. As well as anticipating the final
foreign, suddenly arriving,and unheralded. The multipli- slaughter, then, the statement reinforces the main theme
cation of qualifiers for such a hypothetical war, which (1.10): a civil war more terrible than foreign conflict.
196
would not produce the casualties that Archelaus cre- See the note to “first considered” at 2.25.
197
ated, highlights Antipater’s rhetorical hyperbole. For Insofar as it describes Herod’s motives as they
the first two modifiers, see the following note. On the appear in the foregoing narrative, this is a mischievous
absence of heralds: Josephus uses the adjective “her- claim. According to 1.646, when Herod named Anti-
aldless” (ἀκήρυκτος) only to modify “war” (πόλεμος, pas as successor he passed over Archelaus and Philip,
War 1.269; Ant. 15.139; Apion 1.318). In those other although they were older than Antipas, only because
contexts, the phrase signifies a particularly brutal and/ these two had been victims of a smear campaign by Anti-
or relentless war. The sense is not simply that the war pater: they stood falsely accused of defaming their father
was unannounced or undeclared (as at Herodotus 5.81), (1.602-3). Those charges are consistently presented in
but that, in the absence of heralds to mediate between the narrative as false, Herod being extremely receptive to
the two camps, there would be little opportunity for slander (1.533), and the final version of the will, which
a truce (perhaps deliberately forsworn for military or names Archelaus (1.664), is presented as a rectification
political reasons); thus, truceless, implacable, or all-out of this injustice. Nevertheless, it will be Archelaus’ bru-
war (cf. Bederman 2001: 253-55). Thucydides (1.146.1; tality that brings down his regime according to 2.111.
2.1.1), Aeschines (Fals. leg. 37, 80), Demosthenes (Cor. An attentive audience would understand Antipater to be
18.262), Plato (Leg. 626a), and Xenophon (Hell. 6.4.21; massaging the facts for his rhetorical purposes.
198
Anab. 3.3.5) attest this usage of “the absence of negotiat- The sense is a fortiori: his body was obviously
ing heralds”, most often adding the adjective ἄσπονδος very ill (1.645-47, 656, 662), his mind (it is claimed)
or οὐ σπονδῶν (i.e., “without the drink-offerings” that more so.
199
accompanied a truce) for further clarity; cf. Plutarch, This is another rhetorically convenient claim with
Per. 30. Polybius treats the Libyan War in detail because, no support in the earlier narrative (1.664), where Herod’s
he says, it is a model of “what is commonly called a choice of Archelaus has an obvious narrative logic (see
truceless war” (ἄσπονδος πόλεμος). Philo is particu- preceding notes).
200
larly fond of the phrase ἀκήρυκτος πόλεμος, often with Namely, Antipas: Antipater’s failure to name
ἄσπονδος: Sacr. 18, 35, 130; Deus 166; Conf. 43; Fug. him strengthens the sense in the speech that his party
114; Mut. 60; Somn. 1.106; 2.166; Spec. 4.202; Praem. is chiefly against Archelaus, not especially enamored
26 book two

when he possessed a mind clear of all suffering.201 32 And even if, of course, one were
to posit the judgment of the afflicted man202 as more authoritative, Archelaus had surely
deposed himself from the kingship203 by reason of the things illegally done204 to it by him.
For what sort [of king] would he become after receiving the rule from Caesar, if before
receiving it he had taken so many lives?”205
(2.6) 33 When Antipater had gone through many such points,206 and brought forward
most of the relatives207 as witnesses for each of the accusations, he brought* his discourse
to an end.
Speech of 34 Now Nicolaus208 stood up* on behalf of Archelaus, and showed clearly209 that the
Nicolaus for carnage in the temple had been necessary,210 for those who had been disposed of211 had
Archelaus. Ant.
17.240 been enemies not of the kingship212 alone, but of the one adjudicating it—Caesar.213 35
As for the other charges, he demonstrated214 that his [Archelaus’] advisers [then] had been
the same people as his [present] accusers.215 And he did indeed consider the codicil216 to

208
of Antipas. His claim is that, whereas Herod’s earlier Herod’s aide, a scholar, now loyal to Archelaus
changes to his will resulted from anger, upon learning in keeping with Herod’s final wishes (1.664). See the
that sons previously named were disloyal, this is not note at 2.14.
209
true of the final amendment, which names Archelaus Both this verb (ἀποφαίνω) and that in the next
heir without criticizing Antipas, who is indeed named sentence (see note to “demonstrated” there) imply proof
tetrarch (1.664). Herod’s logic, however, appeared to be by clear reasoning, in keeping with the brief and pithy
that, since the other Antipater’s earlier charges against argument of Nicolaus; contrast the complicated case
Archelaus turned out to be mischievous, the older son made by Antipater, which has depended largely on force-
Archelaus should become king (see previous note). fulness of language (2.26).
201 210
This claim is also mischievous in relation to the The narrator has evidently supported this position
earlier narrative: there, Herod’s serious illness—physical, (2.12).
211
with mental consequences (1.647)—was announced by This is the passive form of the verb elsewhere ren-
the narrator (1.645) just before Herod amended his will dered “do away with, dispose of, get rid of ” (ἀναιρέω).
to make Antipas heir (1.646); see the previous note. As The reference is to Archelaus’ actions at 2.12-3, which
for having a mind free of suffering, the narrator claimed Antipater made the center-piece of his accusation (2.30,
there (1.644) that Herod was in deep distress (περιαλγής 32).
212
. . . πάθους, 1.644) because of his family intrigues. Possibly “kingdom” (Thackeray in LCL for
202
That is, the dying Herod’s judgment in naming βασιλεία), though it is rather the question of royal sov-
Archelaus (1.664). ereignty (M-B: der königlichen Herrschaft) that will be
203
Or/and “kingdom” (βασιλεία). decided by Caesar.
204 213
The reference presumably includes all of the vio- According to the earlier narrative the massacre
lence and misconduct alleged in Antipater’s speech, had been necessary, but for different reasons: Archelaus
though Josephus’ narrative itself has not unambiguously had exhausted every other option in trying to maintain
accused Archelaus of wrongdoing. The verb παρανομέω order, until he lost the better part of a cohort to the
has only occurred once before in this book (2.15). troublemakers (2.6-13) and chaos threatened to erupt.
205
Thus, the end of the speech reverts to the opening He was forced to move quickly against them. Nicolaus
point (2.26-28) about Archelaus’ alleged usurpation of (only in War; contrast his more diffuse appeal in Ant.
Caesar’s authority by prematurely acting as king. 17.240-47) is determined to reduce every argument to
206
Josephus highlights the length and complication of the question of Caesar’s dignity, a strategy that will prove
Antipater’s oration: the numerous points mentioned are successful. Further, this compressed formulation allows
still only representative, and then the orator called a large Nicolaus to pass over the damning but obvious fact that
number of witnesses, whose testimony is not described. Archelaus was himself unable to maintain order. In this
Contrast the extremely succinct but more effective case one sentence, Nicolaus efficiently dispatches Antipater’s
made by Nicolaus in the next paragraph (2.34-6). main complaint.
207 214
Since Archelaus and Antipater are brothers, their See the note to “showed clearly” at 2.34.
215
relatives are shared. At 2.20, 22, we learned that most, Second assertion: those now bringing the charges
then all (πάντες), of the relatives had come to support against Archelaus had once advised him to do what they
Antipas, though the mother and some others had at first now denounce. This bold claim is not supported by the
supported Archelaus. preceding narrative, and we have no means of verifica-
book two 27

be authoritative, for this reason especially: that in it, Caesar was appointed guarantor of
the succession.217 36 “For the man behaving sanely enough to concede his authority to
the master of all218 was not faltering, I presume,219 in his decision about an heir; but quite
sanely, knowing the appointer220 he chose also the appointee.”221
(2.7) 37 When Nicolaus had also gone through everything,222 Archelaus fell* silently
before223 Caesar’s knees. The latter raised him up very affectionately and, though he
intimated224 that he might be worthy of the fatherly succession, by no means expressed
this225 as something confirmed.226 38 After dismissing the councilors,227 he spent that day

222
tion one way or the other. Much of what Antipater has In sum: Nicolaus’ argument comprises 4 asser-
charged appears either invented or heavily manipulated tions, for 3 of which he simply employs the criterion of
vis-à-vis the earlier story of Archelaus’ actions (see notes Caesar’s honor or status, what one might call the reductio
to 2.26-33). Further, Josephus has mentioned no advis- ad dignitatem/gloriam Caesaris. (The 4th claim is simply
ers, attributing Archelaus’ actions either to his desire that Antipater contradicts himself.) Josephus has already
for popular good will (2.4) or to his exasperation at the deployed this criterion to powerful effect in the prologue
rebel elements, along with a determination not to ruin (1.8): assertions that can in any way be shown to dimin-
his chances with Caesar (2.8-9, 12). ish the majesty of the emperor, even if incidentally or by
216
That is, Herod’s final amendment to his will secondary implication, are eo ipso ludicrous. Antipater
(1.664), designating Archelaus king. also tried to invoke Caesar’s dignity (2.26-8), but the
217
The Greek (ὅτι βεβαιωτὴν ἐν αὐτῇ Καίσαρα gravamen of his long-winded discourse lies elsewhere
καθίστατο τοῦ διαδόχου) recalls 1.669: Herod’s will (2.30).
instructs Archelaus to visit Augustus, with his ring and It is a question whether Josephus earnestly believed
documents of state, because Herod had designated the that the appeal to Caesar’s dignity should be a rhetori-
princeps “master of everything . . . and guarantor of cal trump-card, or whether he merely observes this kind
the will” (κύριον γὰρ ἁπάντων . . . καὶ βεβαιωτὴν of argument with ironic detachment as a fact of Roman
τῶν διαθηκῶν). Nicolaus’ appeal here is clever but politics. In favor of the latter is his highly rhetorical use
somewhat mischievous. Whereas he flatteringly proves of the appeal in the prologue and here, where Nicolaus
Herod’s sanity by the king’s choice of Caesar as guaran- bends the preceding narrative to be able to make the
tor, Herod had of course always deferred to Caesar, not charge; cf. the notes at 1.8.
223
least on family and succession issues (1.451-60, 646), Perhaps “grasped the knees” in the Homeric pos-
and Augustus would in any case have had final say about ture of supplication (Il. 8.371; 24.465, 478). Several
the appointment of a “client king” (Braund 1984: 23-37). important MSS (PMC) and corrections of others read
Since, however, no one could say in Caesar’s presence προσπίπτει τῶν Καίσαρος γονάτων, which resembles
that his role as executor was not Herod’s deliberate the nearly formulaic expression for “falling at some-
choice, the argument is (cynically) effective. one’s knees”: προσπίπτει (τοῖς) γόνασι (Demosthenes,
218
Possibly “of the empire” or “the universe” (τῷ Fals. 198; Diodorus 17.35.6; 36.16.1; Dionysius, Ant.
δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων), though at 2.2 the same phrase is rom. 2.45.5; 5.9.1; Plutarch, Cor. 36.4). But then we
used (τῶν ὅλων δεσπότης) to mean master of everything should expect either a preposition or a dative comple-
according to the will. See note there. ment, rather than the genitive here. Niese, LCL, M-B,
219
This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the Pelletier, and Vitucci read προπίπτει (“fall [or throw one-
phrase δή που, though it appears as one word at 2.376 self] before [Caesar]”), though the verb rarely appears
(the only other occurrence in War, also in a rhetorical with this prefix in connection with knees.
224
context). Cf. Ant. 15.130; Apion 1.127; 2.47. See the note to “expressed this” later in this sen-
220
That is, Augustus. tence.
221 225
That is, Archelaus. The language is highly com- Josephus makes a double contrast, first between
pressed, creating a sense of lean and precise logic, with two compounds of φαίνω: ἀποφαίνω (here “express”;
the fewest possible words obstructing the case (i.e., it is “show clearly” at 2.34) with ἐμφαίνω (“intimate”) earlier
only about Caesar’s dignity), in stark contrast to Anti- in this sentence. The latter word and its cognate ἔμφασις
pater’s “forceful” oration on sundry moral and political were used in rhetorical discussions to mean “reflected”
issues. Especially since the parallel version of Nicolaus’ or “refracted” speech: something that was not explicitly
speech in Ant. 17.240-47 is considerably longer and not articulated, but required the audience to complete its
nearly as focused on the appeal to Caesar, it seems that meaning; cf. Ahl 1984: 176-79; Demetrius, Eloc. 216,
Josephus has shaped this version to suit his present liter- 297. Second, Caesar’s refraining from an open declara-
ary purposes. tion concerning Archelaus contrasts with the clear proof
28 book two

by himself, pondering the matters he had heard presented, and whether he ought to ap-
point a particular successor from those in the wills228 or distribute the rule among all the
offspring229—for the whole bunch230 of characters231 appeared to need support.232
Revolt in Judea, (3.1) 39 Before Caesar reached any determination in these matters,233 first Archelaus’
4 BCE. Ant. mother Malthace234 died*, after falling ill, and then letters were brought out of Syria from
17.250
Varus235 about the rebellion236 of Judeans.237 40 Foreseeing this,238 Varus had gone up into

of Archelaus’ advocate (same verb used at 2.34) that his before the emperor, a humiliating exercise that under-
order to kill the temple rebels was necessary. The par- mines the dignity of the nation and its royal claimants.
allel (Ant. 17.249) stresses the psychological effect on The need for constant intervention by the princeps would
Archelaus, who has no clear word from Caesar; in both disappear if the government were, as Josephus prefers,
narratives the effect is to build suspense. aristocratic (cf. 1.170; cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b).
226 233
This word (βέβαιος) occurred twice in the opening The way Josephus structures this paragraph high-
sentences of bk. 2, as the issue on which Archelaus has lights his maintenance of suspense about Caesar’s deci-
been waiting (2.2-3). Suspense continues to build, since sion, which will not arrive until 2.93-100.
234
we still do not have an answer from Caesar; it will come Malthace (the Samarian), one of Herod’s 9 wives
only in 2.93-100. (1.562), is significant because, although she is the mother
227
See the note to “council” (συνέδριον) at 2.25; here of both rivals, Archelaus and Antipas, the narrator has
councilors (τοὺς συνέδρους). Josephus customarily uses reported (2.14-15, 21) that she had at first supported
the verb διαλύω, as here, to speak of dissolving such Archelaus’ claim to rule, but then switched to support
an ad hoc advisory group: War 1.559; 2.93; 6.243; Ant. Antipas (2.21-22). Her death might be presumed to have
17.312. affected the lines of influence upon Caesar.
228 235
Elsewhere I use the singular “will,” though the The Roman governor (legate) of Syria, Varus
Greek (διαθῆκαι) is normally plural (2.2, 31), as would have been famous to Roman readers (see the note
demanded by the context. Here I use the plural because at 1.20). He has been an important background figure in
different wills are in view. The main contenders named events, playing the role of honest broker and protector of
in those wills are Antipas, supported by Salome and the client kingdom’s integrity and royal assets (1.617-40;
Nicolaus’ brother Ptolemy (2.20-21), and Archelaus, sup- 2.16-18).
236
ported by Nicolaus (2.34-6). Their mother’s preference Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις), one of the
is no longer clear (cf. 2.21, but 22). many stasis-compounds in Josephus (cf. 1.93; see note to
229
This notice anticipates Augustus’ eventual decision “civil strife” at 1.10); he uses this noun 64 times, 36 of
(2.93-100; cf. 2.83); for the moment it deepens the sus- those in War and half of these in bk. 2, where undertak-
pense by raising the new possibility of multiple heirs. ing rebellion against Rome and the Jerusalem élite is still
230
Greek τὸ πλῆθος, the dehumanizing collective the main issue—as distinct from the later war, famine,
singular often used by Josephus (2.2, 4, 8, 11, etc.) and civil strife. Indeed, the following paragraphs portray
and other Greek historians for the common “rabble” or a major revolt in 4 BCE, which foreshadows the war of
“mob” (see Introduction). Its use here for royal progeny 70 years later that is the central subject of the book. The
seems to be sarcastic: there is no clear, single worthy event is significant enough to receive mention in Jose-
successor, but only a “bunch” of claimants. phus’ prologue (1.20), where he flags it as a paradigm
231
This is the same word (plural of τὸ πρόσωπον) of sedition (with the verb καταστασιάζω), and in Taci-
as that translated “mask” at 2.29, where Antipater has tus, Hist. 5.9. The revolt anticipated here (cf. 2.43-79)
accused Archelaus of putting on a show of respect for required 3 legions plus auxiliaries to suppress (2.67-69);
his dead father to conceal his real feelings. Given the it was therefore qualitatively different from the periodic
context, it seems that the acting theme continues here in riots that confronted Archelaus himself (2.4-13). For
Caesar’s wise assessment: they are all actors! analysis, see Smallwood 1981: 111.
232 237
Or “care, assistance” (ἐπικουρία). This is either a What follows in 2.39-42 is a flashback, followed
remarkably humane motive on Augustus’ part—support by a major excursus on the “war” under Varus in 4-3
for as many royals as possible—or an ironic assessment. BCE (2.43-79); the narrative of the Herodians in Rome
Given Josephus’ portrait of the emperor’s sagacity else- will resume at 2.80.
where (e.g., 1.452), one must suspect irony here. Part of 238
See also “quite clear” (and note) in this section.
Josephus’ point may be that the Judean kingdom, now Varus’ foresight in military matters is in marked (possibly
as also when it was under the last of the Hasmoneans ironic) contrast to his reputation in Josephus’ Rome as
(1.120-32; 5.396), proves unable to manage its affairs— the man who had lost 3 legions and committed suicide in
especially succession issues—without bitter struggles the Teutoburg forest, because of an utter failure of fore-
book two 29

Hierosolyma239 after the sailing of Archelaus, to restrain the agitators.240 Since it was quite
clear241 that the rabble was not about to keep the peace,242 he left behind* in the city one
of the three legions from Syria243 that he had come leading. 41 Whereas he himself then
returned to Antiocheia,244 Sabinus245 came in and furnished them with an occasion246 for
revolution-making.247 For he tried248 both to force the guards to hand over the high forts249
and to track down250 the royal property in a harsh manner, relying not only on the soldiers

246
sight (see the note at 1.20). In this narrative his foresight Literally, a “pushing-off point” (ἀφορμή), which
is laudable, though hardly miraculous. On the one hand, has many possibilities in a military context: base of oper-
he has been aware of the troublemakers’ demanding sat- ations, occasion, inducement, origin or starting-point,
isfaction for Herod’s perceived crimes, and they are now resource base (cf. 5.397). Apropos of the “illness” theme
presumably more radicalized after Archelaus’ massacre that runs through War in connection with civil strife (see
of thousands in the temple precinct (2.10-13); on the note at 1.10), it is significant that the word also has a
other hand, Varus knows that his own procurator Sabinus medical application: Hippocrates, Epid 2.1.11; Soranus
has been trying to seize Herodian assets (2.16-19). These 1.29. Whereas here in War Sabinus’ actions provide the
two factors produce a potent combination of provoca- pretext (apparently sought in advance by the “agitators”)
tion and resentment among the Judeans, as the following for the single revolt introduced in 2.39 and foreseen by
narrative shows. In the Antiquities parallel (17.250-53), Varus in 2.40-41, the parallel (Ant. 17.250-53) has two
Varus only responds to actual rebellion and has no spe- distinct rebellions: a major one put down by Varus, after
cial foresight; see note to “stimulus” at 2.41. which he leaves a legion to maintain the peace, followed
239
See the note to “up” at 2.16. “Into” stresses Varus’ by a second instigated by Sabinus. The later account
entry past the city walls. flows more logically (rebellion, report, suppression, leav-
240
The verb used in this participle (παρακινέω) is ing of legion to maintain peace, further rebellion pro-
favored by Josephus in War: the prologue (1.4) juxtaposes voked by Sabinus) than this one (anticipatory report of
“movement” (κίνημα) with restive groups (παρεκίνουν) rebellion, revolt foreseen by Varus because of a rabble’s
among the Gauls, contributing to the general sense of nature, legion left as safeguard on the basis of Varus’
upheaval that drives especially bk. 2. Cf. also 1.323; intuition, rebellion actually occurs at Sabinus’ provoca-
2.69, 73, 220; [3.33]; 5.123. tion), and this is one of many indicators that Josephus
241
Josephus’ word-choice (πρόδηλος) is significant: may be condensing and reshaping a fuller account closer
it will appear twice more in connection with the perfect to Antiquities’ version. See Cohen 1979: 48-66.
247
clarity that the later war against Rome is doomed (2.396; The noun νεωτεροποιία is rare, occurring only 13
4.287); but in the intervening period of mayhem and times in extant literature before Josephus (so TLG), and
deception (bks. 3-6), the word disappears—until bk. 7, 8 of those occurrences are in Philo. Yet Josephus has it
where it appears with some frequency (7.326, 338, 384; 7 times. The word appears once in Thucydides (1.102.3),
cf. 182, 235, 283), everything being as clear as can be once in Dionysius (Dem. 2.29), and twice in fragments
after the destruction of Jerusalem. of Nicolaus not taken from Josephus (FHG 3.101, ll.
242
In 2.73-4, by contrast, the populace will deny any 324, 623). Although it is possible that Josephus’ use
complicity in the revolt, blaming it all on the rabble that of the word was inspired by Nicolaus (in this case and
visited for the (coming) festival. It is unclear whether Ant. 14.433; 17.252, 316), the other occurrences are in
Josephus offers either claim as trustworthy. narrative far removed from Nicolaus’ source material
243
Varus was known to Josephus’ literary audience (War 6.329; 7.81, 421). Philo’s heavy usage of the term
for subsequently having lost 3 legions in Germany (see strengthens the pattern of Josephus’ “Philonic” lan-
note at 1.20), and 3 legions will initially prosecute the guage.
248
later Judean-Roman war (V Macedonica, X Fretensis, XV The verb “try to” is not in the text, but I trans-
Apollinaris [anticipated and later rejoined by XII Fulmi- late both of the imperfect verbs (“forcing” and “tracking
nata]; see the note to “forces” at 1.21). When Varus was down”) as conatives, indicating the subject’s intention.
249
legate in 4 BCE, these legions were not yet all in Syria. Sabinus thus continues the project he began in
Possible forces at this time were III Gallica and VI Fer- 2.16-18 (see notes in 2.17-18 concerning these high
rata, both of which had been in Syria from 30 BCE, and forts) of trying to seize the late king’s assets before a
X Fretensis or XII Fulminata, whose time of arrival in new client should take over.
250
the region is uncertain. See Keppie 1998: 206-10. Josephus’ use of the same verb (διερευνάω) as
244
See note at 2.18. in 2.18 draws attention to the resumption of Sabinus’
245
See notes at 2.16, 24. postponed activity.
30 book two

who had been left behind by Varus,251 but also on a horde of his personal slaves,252 all of
whom he armed and used253 as henchmen254 in the service of his greed.255
Conflict in 42 With the onset256 of the “Fiftieth” [Pentecost]257—so the Judeans call a certain fes-
Jerusalem at tival that occurs seven weeks past,258 taking its name from the number of days259—it was
Pentecost. Ant.
17.254 not the customary worship260 that brought the populace together, but their indignation.261
43 At any rate, a countless horde262 ran together263 from both Galilee and Idumea,264 and

251
I.e., the legion (somewhat more than 5000 troops points within the Passover (Lev 23:15 from the priest’s
if at full strength) left by Varus on his return to Antioch waving of the barley sheaf; Deut 16:9 from the time
(2.40). when the sickle is put to the grain).
252 259
Slavery was widespread in the Roman world: Josephus clarifies in Ant. 3.251-52: when 7 weeks
slaves appear to have accounted for a third or more of following the barley-sheaf offering of Pentecost have
many urban populations in Italy, and anyone of means elapsed, on the 50th day (Pentecost) a new sacrifice is
would have several. See e.g., Finley 1960; Massey and offered. He consistently displays an awareness that his
Moreland 1978; Alföldy 1988: 67-8; 135-41; Bradley audience might not understand even such basic Judean
1994; Harris 1999. Slave ownership was so much taken terminology (see Introduction). Whereas elsewhere he
for granted that Josephus does not even include his own explains minimally that this festival is “called Pente-
slaves in a list of small benefits received from the Flavi- cost” (War 1.253; 6.299; cf. Ant. 17.254), only here in
ans (Life 414-429), though he mentions one incidentally War does he describe the term more fully. His fullest
(Life 429). It was assumed that a public official’s entou- description is at Ant. 3.252 (based upon Lev 23:15-21;
rage in the provinces would include slave-assistants for Num 28.25-31; Deut 16:9-11), where he mentions also
all sorts of purposes, though these might also be pub- the title “Weeks” (Hebrew ‫)שבעות‬. On the Greek name
licly owned slaves, who assisted magistrate in Rome and of this festival see Pelletier 1975: 224-5.
260
abroad (cf. comprehensively Weiss 2004). The qualifica- Or “ritual.” Although the word θρησκεία hardly
tion “his personal [or private] slaves” apparently serves occurs outside of Judean or Christian Greek before Jose-
to distinguish these from the servi publici. phus (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.63.2; Strabo 10.3.23; Plu-
253
According to 2.19, Sabinus had been rebuffed in tarch and Lucian have it once each; cf. 4 Macc 5:7, 13;
his initial efforts to seize the fortresses by their guards. Wis 14:18, 27; Philo, Det. 21.2; Fug. 41.4; Spec. 1.315;
This information about regular and irregular forces now Legat. 232, 298; James 1:26-7; Col. 2:18), Josephus has
at his disposal explains why he is able finally to achieve it a remarkable 91 times.
261
his goal. See the note to this thematic, drama-enhancing
254
The Antiquities parallel (17.253) has δορυφόροι, word at 2.29.
262
lit. “spear-carriers” (LCL: “terrorists”). Josephus is particularly inclined to use this phrase
255
Josephus finally confirms Sabinus’ motive, which (πλῆθος ἄπειρον) in War 2, whether of persons or of
had been unclear earlier, and the reason for Varus’ pre- things (necessitating a change in translation): also at
vention of his plan (2.16). The alleged greed is on a 2.105, 253, 381, 523, 543, 592. These account for about
massive scale: robbing the well-guarded treasuries of a third of all instances in his corpus. Though used occa-
a world-famous and wealthy allied king, and using a sionally by authors before him (typically 1-3 times each),
Roman legion with other forces to do so. none comes close to Josephus’ frequency of usage.
256 263
See the note at 2.10. The Judean masses running (συντρέχω) or stream-
257
One of the 3 annual festivals requiring the atten- ing together (συρρέω), as a nation spontaneously unified
dance of male Israelites in Jerusalem (Deut 16:16), in response to Roman gubernatorial outrages, is formu-
the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) took its name from Deut laic in War 2 (2.170, 230, 233, 294, 315; cf. 490).
264
16:9-12, which introduces it as the festival 7 weeks after That is, from the regions in the N and S extremities
Passover. Lev 23:16 spells out, however, that an extra day of Judea. Both have been mentioned frequently in War ,
must be added, so that this festival of grain and meat in connection with activities under the Hasmoneans and
offerings occurs on the 50th day. Herod: Galilee, 1.21-22, 76, 170, 203, etc.; Idumea, 1.63,
258
Josephus does not spell it out, but he apparently 263, 266-67, etc. Idumea, reportedly Judaized by John
means 7 weeks after the feast he has recently mentioned Hyrcanus (1.63; cf. Ant. 13.254-58) and home of the
as chronological context: “Unleavened” or Passover Herodian family, was a toparchic region in the province
(2.10). Note the similar language and sentence structure of Judea (3.55). Kasher (1988: 44-78) offers a vigor-
there. Possibly he omits the point from which one counts ous review of scholarship and a challenge to Josephus’
the 7 weeks because the Bible itself gives two different claims about the forced conversion under Hyrcanus; cf.
book two 31

both Jericho265 and Perea beyond the Jordan,266 while the heartland citizenry267 from Judea
itself surpassed [these] in quantity268 and in eagerness269 of men. 44 Dividing themselves
into three groups, they set up camp* on three sides: at the northern edge of the temple270
and at the south along the hippodrome,271 the third portion by the royal grounds272 along
the western side.273 Positioning themselves all around, from every side,274 they besieged
the Romans.275
(3.2) 45 Sabinus shrank in fear276 at both their quantity277 and their confidence; he kept Sabinus’ legion
engages mob.
Ant. 17.256

Cohen 1987. At any rate, Josephus assumes the audi- cities (Jericho at 1.659-60, 666; Tarichaea in Galilee,
ence’s knowledge of these regional names, and they are Life 132, 138). In Jerusalem’s case it was likely identi-
described by Strabo (16.2.34, 40, seemingly borrowing cal with the amphitheater built by Herod “in the plain”
from Posidonius, FGrH 2a.87.F frag. 70), Pliny the Elder mentioned at Ant. 15.268 (note the interchangeable use
(Nat. 5.70), and others (2nd cent. CE, Claudius Ptole- of these terms at 1.659, 666 and the note to “stadium”
maeus, Geog. 5.16.4). Josephus will digress to describe at 2.172), the location of which remains unknown; see
Galilee much more fully at 3.35-43. Appendix A and the note to “Xystus” at 2.344; also Ber-
265
See the note at 2.57 below. nett 2007: 52-66. The parallel at Ant. 17.255 has this
266
That is, from both sides of the Jordan River. The group occupying (ἀπολαμβάνω) the hippodrome, as a
name Perea (from πέραιος) means literally “beyond, base for military operations close to the city.
272
across, on the other bank.” Since the term was com- That is, the Herodian palace complex on the W
monly used for other locations in the eastern empire, side of the city: War 1.402; 5.176-83; Ant. 15.318. After
Josephus has to explain to his Roman audience that he the fortress Antonia, the Herodian palace with its mas-
means Judean Perea. On Jericho and Perea see further sive walls and towers was a logical place for soldiers to
2.57 below. establish defenses (cf. 2.430-31); one would assume that
267
Or “the homegrown [or original] population”: ὁ both sites were being used by the Syrian legion taken
γνήσιος . . . λαός means most literally the “real” or over by Sabinus.
273
“genuine” Judeans (cf. note to “Greeks” at 1.16); here Lit. “along the sunset.”
274
he is contrasting those from the historic center of Judea An obvious but forgivable exaggeration: the masses
with Judeans from outlying areas. For the noun, see the do not occupy the ground E of the city, as Titus’ Tenth
note at 2.1. Legion would early in the later conflict (5.70), but this
268
This is the same word (πλῆθος) that I translate is understandable since the deep Kidron Valley immedi-
with the article, as earlier in this sentence, as “the horde, ately beside the city walls had nothing to commend it as
rabble, mob”—an unflattering collective singular for a a military camp site. The Tenth Legion camped high on
body of non-élite people. the Mount of Olives, and even then were nearly routed
269
Josephus uses a plural here (“eagernesses”), by daring surprise attacks from the Judeans in the city
perhaps to match the plural “men”—emphasizing the (5.74-97).
275
“eagerness” of each man in addition to the collective Although Josephus does not spell this out for his
mass just mentioned. audience, it seems that the Romans would have concen-
270
Greek πρός τε τῷ βορείῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ κλίματι. trated their troops in the Antonia fortress to the NE and
Although Josephus curiously does not mention it here, the Herodian palace complex on the W; see previous
this is precisely where the fortress Antonia lay, an older notes. The remarkable degree of organization here (cf.
foundation rebuilt by Herod on a massive scale and Simonetti 742 n. 118) is part of a theme in War: that
named to honor Marc Antony (War 1.401); this was the the irregular, untrained Judean people in revolt often
natural place for the legion left by Varus to maintain its behave spontaneously like a regular army (see note to
headquarters (though it would need much more space for “close order” at 2.12), whereas the renowned legions
its camp). Josephus first introduced the Antonia with very often suffer setbacks and confusion.
276
similar words (War 1.118): “a fortress lying on the north- Even though Josephus deplores the prospect of
ern side [possibly “slope”] of the temple” (φρούριον δ’ revolt, this notice about a Roman official’s fear begins a
ἦν τῷ βορείῳ κλίματι τοῦ ἱεροῦ προσκείμενον). The long series of passages in which the narrator will observe
parallel (Ant. 17.255) has a difficult text, which seems to that the daring and resolve of the Judeans overwhelmed
say that this group was in the N, facing S, while “hold- even the renowned courage and good order of the Roman
ing” the E. legions, e.g.: 3.229-30, 472-88; 5.71-97, 277-78, 305-6,
271
A horse- (or chariot-) racing track, often used also 315-16; 6.13-14, 33-53; cf. 2.11. See the Introduction, on
for other functions, found in most Greek and Roman his attempt to redeem Judean honor after the war.
32 book two

sending messengers to Varus pleading with him to come quickly to his defense, since
if he were to delay the legion278 would be cut to pieces.279 46 He himself went up onto
the highest tower of the fortress,280 which was called Phasael281 (having been named for
Herod’s brother who was destroyed282 by the Parthians),283 and from there he signaled to
the soldiers in the legion to attack the enemy, for on account of distress he did not dare
to go down to his own men.284 47 Obeying nevertheless,285 the soldiers plunged ahead*286
into the temple287 and engaged the Judeans in tough battle.288 In this [battle], as long as
there was no one helping the defense from above,289 with their experience290 of war they

277
See the note to this word at 2.43. generals. Although later Greek and Roman strategists
278
That is, the legion that Varus had left in Jerusalem tended to think that the general should remain back from
to maintain order (2.40). It is telling that he must dra- the fighting (Onasander 33; cf. War 5.85-97), at certain
matize the legion’s possible fate in order to get Varus’ crucial moments in War’s narrative Titus will take the
attention; there seems to be no love lost between Varus lead among his troops and save the day (War 5.71-84).
and Sabinus; cf. also 2.66, where indeed Varus worries On other occasions, however, he will be far from the
for the legion and rushes to its aid. action, either observing or entirely unaware of what is
279
This graphic verb (κατακόπτω) is used by Thucy- happening (6.89, 183-84, 254); see Introduction. Fearful
dides (7.29) to describe the massacre at the boys’ school Sabinus, who had no business fighting in the first place,
at Mycalessus by the bloodthirsty Thracians—the worst is plainly not an object of admiration here.
285
disaster in that war—and by Herodotus to describe Athe- This fairly rare word (in Josephus only again at
nians cutting Persians to pieces at Salamis (8.92). It is War 6.288), παραπείθω, suggests mischievous persua-
ironic, again, that Varus, who would through his lack of sion, cajoling, or beguiling. In the context here, it seems
foresight cause one of the most infamous massacres of less likely that the legionaries were beguiled by the cow-
Roman legions, in 9 CE, should be the one to prevent ardly Sabinus than that they followed his order in spite
such a situation here. See the notes to “Varus” at 1.20 of knowing its underhanded basis.
286
and to “foreseeing this” at 2.40. Before Josephus the word προπηδάω is attested
280
Josephus does not clarify, but “fortress” here very rarely (once each in Aristophanes, Agatharchides,
means the high-walled Herodian palace complex in the Megasthenes, Diodorus, Philo, Onasander, twice in
W (“upper”) part of the city, where the Phasael tower Aeschylus), and yet he has it a remarkable 21 times in
stood (1.402, 418). War 2-6, once in Antiquities (20.177). From the 2nd cent.
281
King Herod had built one of the monumental CE it begins to appear more often (Dio Chrysostom,
towers along the wall of his palace, at the height of W Epictetus, twice in Arrian, 4 in Lucian, 7 in Appian,
Jerusalem’s Upper City, in honor of his brother Phasael etc.), suggesting that Josephus is, as often, using newly
(1.418; 5.166-69). fashionable language. It is a vivid term that enhances
282
See the note at 2.11. the narrative action.
283 287
The story of Phasael’s treacherous arrest by the Par- As the sequel makes clear (with fighting from the
thians, when Pacorus (son of the Parthian king Orodes II) porticoes), the soldiers have advanced into the temple
invaded Syria in 40 BCE—with the indispensable help of precincts, not into the central shrine (ναός). For the
the Roman Quintus Labienus—and installed (via another important distinction, see the note to “shrine” at 1.10.
Pacorus, the cup-bearer) the Hasmonean Antigonus on See also Pelletier, n. 19 ad loc, correcting Thackeray
the throne, was told in detail at War 1.255-72; cf. Ant. and M-B.
288
14.365-369. According to that story, however, Phasael This cliché (μάχη καρτερά) appears elsewhere in
was not killed by the Parthians; they handed him over to Josephus at War 6.74; Ant. 15.111, 151; 17.258.
289
their client Antigonus for torture, and Phasael committed Josephus uses the adverb καθύπερθε an impres-
suicide rather than face this humiliation (1.271). Or he sive 19 times in War (1-6), 6 times in Ant. 5. Although
recovered from the suicide attempt, and a physician sent Thucydides has it twice (4.43.3; 5.59.3), Polybius,
by Antigonus poisoned him (1.272). Diodorus, Dionysius, and Philo do not use it; Strabo
284
When in a position of military leadership, Jose- has it 4 times, Plutarch only 3. The striking exceptions
phus emphasizes, he personally led daring raids against are Homer (23 occurrences) and Herodotus (50): it thus
the (Roman) enemy: War 3.153-54. It was an old prin- counts as Homeric-Herodotean language.
290
ciple of Greek citizen-hoplite warfare that commanders Or as elsewhere “expertise” (ἐμπειρία); here I ren-
fought in the thick of the battle (Hanson 1989: 107-116), der “experience” for a more idiomatic contrast to τῶν
and Eckstein (1995: 28-40) shows that Polybius, one ἀπείρων (“the inexperienced, inexpert”). Roman “war
of Josephus’ models, admired such personal courage in expertise” is a prominent theme in Josephus’ works: War
book two 33

got past the inexperienced [Judeans], 48 but then many Judeans climbed up onto the col-
onnades291 and began to hurl projectiles292 down at their heads. Many were crushed, and
it was not easy either to protect themselves against those who were throwing from above
or to hold their position against those fighting at close quarter.293
(3.3) 49 Becoming worn out294 from both, they [the Romans] set the colonnades on Damage
fire*295—marvelous works in consequence of both their size and their costliness296—and to temple
precincts. Ant.
those who were on top of them were suddenly surrounded by the blaze: 297 many were 17.260
destroyed298 in it, many others at the hands of the enemy as they plunged into them. Some
were flinging themselves299 down from the wall to the rear, while some out of helplessness
anticipated the fire by means of their own swords;300 50 but all those who crept down301
from the walls and darted302 into the Romans were easy to handle because of their dis-

295
3.69; 5.46; 6.81; Life 17 and note ad loc. in Mason BJP Of the 18 occurrences of the compound verb
9; cf. Hadas-Lebel 1987: 832-836. ὑποπίμπρημι in Josephus, 17 are in War 1-6 (also Ant.
291
Even without the fuller description of the columns 8.311). Ironically, destroying the porticoes will later
that Josephus will later supply (5.190-92), the audience become an expression of Judean defiance: 2.330-31,
would understand already that climbing up on the super- 403; 6.165-66, 177-81, 191. The parallel at Ant. 17.261
structure of such monumental columns, presumably with elaborates that the portico roof was highly combustible,
ladders (cf. 6.22), to harass professional soldiers was a being made of woodwork, pitch, and wax.
296
daring enterprise. The massive colonnades that Herod See the note to “colonnades” at 2.48.
297
constructed around the perimeter of his temple mount The following description has a remarkably close—
were introduced at 1.401. Josephus will claim (5.190-92) and symmetrical—parallel in 6.180-81, where Judeans
that each was carved from a single block of white marble will set fire to the portico roof and Romans will die.
(but see Netzer [2006: 310]: this was an optical illusion Each passage lists 5 kinds of death, following an initial
created by the use of limestone, plaster, or stucco) and μέν . . . δέ construction. About 14 significant words (not
stood about 12.5 metres (40 ft.), supporting a cedar-panel counting conjunctions and particles) from this passage
roof. Aside from their impressive aesthetics, the broad appear also in the later one; see Introduction on the con-
colonnades (about 15 m./45 ft.wide) had the practical centric stucture of the War .
298
function of shielding large crowds from rain and sun See the note at 2.11.
299
(cf. 1.425). The northern and western colonnades con- The simple form of this verb (κρημνίζω), used
nected the temple area with the fortress Antonia (2.330; here, is extremely rare before Josephus’ time (2 Macc
5.243-44), thus serving the auxiliary soldiers as a secure 6:10; Diodorus 9.19.1); much more common is the form
observation tier for crowd control (2.224-26)—and the with the prefix κατα-, which enhances the “downward”
Judeans as a defense-post during the later war (2.536; motion of the verb. Diodorus is the only predecessor
4.206, 298; 5.304). to use the entire word-group to any significant degree
292
This will become a familiar scene in War (cf. next (14 times). Josephus has the word-group 12 times, this
2.329). The word for projectile (βέλος) occurs only 6 unprefixed form twice (also 4.7); Plutarch has the group
times elsewhere in Josephus, but 57 times in War, almost 16 times, the unprefixed form once (Mor. [Lib. educ.]
all of these from the latter half of bk. 2 onward. Since it 5b). Josephus appears again to be using newly fashion-
literally indicates anything that may be thrown or fired, able language. See also the note to “propped it up” (an
the two main classes of projectile were various kinds unparalleled and paradoxical form) at 2.435.
300
of shot (clay, stones, and rocks), on the one hand, and That is, they killed themselves rather than waiting
bolts, arrows, or spears on the other. Where the context for the fire to kill them; cf. 6.181.
301
seems clearly to indicate arrows, darts, or spears (the This colorful word (καθέρπω) has slight attes-
more common usage), it is so translated. tation before Josephus (Aristophanes, Ran. 129, 485;
293
Josephus uses the indeclinable συστάδην only 4 Xenophon, Symp. 4.23, and a fragment of Sophocles).
times, 3 of these in War 2 (also 2.423, 512; cf. 5.305). It occurs only here in War ; also Ant. 14.423.
294
Curiously, of only 5 occurrences of καταπονέω in 302
This word (ἀίσσω) is “rarely found in prose”
War , 3 turn up in very similar contexts (victims of bom- (LSJ): cf. Homer, Il. 2.106; 4.78; 5.81; 6.232; 11.118,
bardment from high places around the temple) and in 484; 17.460, 579; 18.506; 21.247; 24.320. In the parallel
the plural present passive participle as here (also 2.329; (Ant. 17.263), this group does not appear; all are flee-
6.178). This suggests a high degree of stylization in Jose- ing for their lives, and Josephus reflects that, unarmed,
phus’ thinking about such scenes. they had no chance against the Romans. But this notice
34 book two

tress.303 And so, with some having perished and the others having been scattered by the
anxiety, the soldiers fell upon the deserted treasury of God304 and plundered305 about 400
talents,306 of which Sabinus collected whatever was not stolen first.307

and this verb are highly significant in War because they This movement of funds from other provinces to a
anticipate the characteristically intrepid Judean style of foreign city had become an issue when L. Valerius Flac-
combat in the coming conflict. It is typically—except cus attempted as governor of Asia to block it; Cicero
when the legions fail in their discipline (e.g., 6.179)— defended his action against a “barbarian superstition”
contrasted with Roman order and method (4.45-6; 5.75, (Flacc. 67). Augustus, however, reportedly confi rmed
305-6, 315-16; 6.17-19; 7.212; on Roman order see the propriety of the temple tax (Josephus, Ant. 16.162-
3.98-107). Josephus plainly admires the Judeans’ dar- 165; commentary by Pucci ben Zeev 1998: 253-55). Cf.
ing in the face of an overwhelming professional army Tacitus, who claims (Hist. 5.5) that the worst sort of
on the Roman side, even if he deplores the revolt itself; people from other nations “kept sending subventions and
see Introduction. The Judeans’ courage is all the more donations [tributa et stipes] there, thus increasing the
remarkable if we should understand here that they dash wealth of the Judeans,” and 5.7: Jerusalem had a temple
into Roman ranks unarmed. “of enormous wealth.”
303
Cf. Sabinus’ distress (ἔκπληξις) in 2.46, which Like other temples, the one in Jerusalem served also
started this engagement. There seems to be an implied as a bank and place of safe deposit: it was relatively
contrast: whereas he, a coward, felt distress while safely secure because of its divinely protected status (asylum)
ensconced in a tower, on account of his unjust actions, and, practically, because of its thick walls and fortress-
the Judeans have a right to distress as they manfully face like position (cf. Jeremias 1969: 55-6). It remains unclear
Roman soldiers and swords. to what extent the temple’s funds were maintained in sep-
304
The parallel (Ant. 17.264) has “the treasury where arate accounts for temple use, civic projects (2.175, 564;
the sacred funds were.” See also the two following notes 4.141; 5.518), and private savings. Josephus remarks that
and 2.331 (“treasuries of God” coveted by Gessius Flo- at the time of the final conquest, the treasury-chambers
rus). Josephus uses 4 phrases to describe the temple contained vast sums of money deposited by Jerusalem’s
treasury [each also in plural]: “the treasury of God” wealthiest citizens for safe keeping (cf. 4 Macc 4:3),
(ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ θησαυρὸς) as here, 2.331; Ant. 7.367, 69; along with rich priestly clothing and temple fabrics of
8.95, 258; 9.170, 202; “the sacred treasury” (ὁ ἱερὸς purple (6.282). At the time of Titus’ conquest, a priest
θησαυρός), 2.175, 293; 5.187; “the public treasury” and the temple treasurer will spare their lives by giv-
(ὁ δημόσιος θησαυρός), 2.564; 4.140; 5.518; and “the ing up the remaining contents of the treasuries to the
treasury-chamber” (τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον, γαζαφυλακεῖον), Romans (6.387-391). Pompey, by contrast, though he
War 5.200; 6.282; Ant. 9.164; 11.119, 126; 13.429; conquered and temporarily occupied the temple in 63
19.294). Similar phrases to the first 3 are in Dionysius BCE, is said to have left its treasures intact for the sake
(Ant. rom. 20.9.1-2), who describes with outrage King of piety (Ant. 14.73; cf. War 1.152-53; Cicero, Flacc.
Pyrrhus’ appropriation of the sacred treasury from the 67; but Dio 27.16.4).
305
temple of Persephone at Locri, with the sequel of divine Notwithstanding Pompey’s example (previous
punishment. note), the Jerusalem temple was a frequent target for
The principal source of revenue for the treasuries, it well-armed local strongmen who needed quick money,
seems, was the half-shekel or didrachma temple tax paid and foreign leaders who thought they were entitled to
by Judeans everywhere for the upkeep of the sanctuary use the funds, whether for civic projects or in lieu of
(Exod 30:11-16; War 7.218; Ant. 18.312; Matt 17:24-27): delinquent tribute: see 1.32, 179 [1.152-53]; 2.175, 293
at War 5.187 Josephus remarks that the “sacred treasures” (cf. 403), 331; 5.187; Ant. 10.111, 144, 149, 233, 175;
were continually replenished by subventions from around 11.10, 14; 12.49-50; 14.105; Apion 2.80-83. Josephus
the world. Other sources included things vowed (votive does not shrink from including the destroyers of Jeru-
offerings) and voluntary donations—whether specific salem led by Titus in this long line, and from spelling
adornments by potentates or the more common gifts of out their plunder of even the most sacred, and priestly,
money (see Schürer-Vermes 2.270-74). The Mishnah accoutrements (6.387-391; 7.148-152).
306
tractate Sheqalim is devoted to the issue of collecting This was an enormous sum. Originally the term
and disbursing these funds (see also notes at 2.175). M. (τάλαντον) referred to weigh-scales, but it had also
Sheqal. 1.1, 3 claims that the half-shekel tax was col- come to indicate the standard weight (about 26 kg/57.5
lected from the world’s Judean communities annually lb [Attic] or 38 kg/84 lb [Aeginetic]) of gold or silver
in Adar (Feb-March), to be ready for Nisan 1 (March- in its largest denomination. The talent was worth 6,000
April). drachmas. In this period legionary soldiers were paid
book two 35

(3.4) 51 But this loss308 of both the [temple] works309 and men only rallied the Judeans, Sabinus’ army
much greater in number now and more ready to fight,310 against the Romans. Surround- trapped. Ant.
17.265
ing the royal precincts,311 they threatened to destroy312 them all completely313 if they did
not make off quickly—for they promised amnesty314 to Sabinus if he was willing to leave
with his legion.315 52 Now the majority of the royal troops316 deserted and joined up with

311
the equivalent of 225 drachmae (denarii) annually, aux- That is, the Herodian palace in W Jerusalem, occu-
iliary soldiers—as in Judea—perhaps one third of that pied by Sabinus and his legion as a fortress: 2.44-46.
312
(Watson 1969: 89-114). So a single talent would have See the note at 2.11.
313
been slightly more than a legionary’s total gross pay for This verb (διαφθείρω) is cognate to the noun
an entire career of 25 years. But Josephus also implies ‘ruin’ in this sentence, with an intensifying prefix διά: in
(Ant. 17.146, 189-90, 321-23) that 1 Judean talent was response to ruin or destruction, the Judeans will utterly
equivalent to 10,000 Attic drachmas (= 12,000 Phoeni- destroy the enemy.
314
cian drachmas). See Schürer-Vermes 2.63-67. Or “safe passage, impunity”: etymologically, “ab-
He seems to indicate that by the mid-1st century BCE sence of fear” (ἄδεια).
315
the cash holdings of the temple were 2,000 talents (1.152, In his build-up to the later war, Josephus will fea-
179; Ant. 14.72). Once Herod had designated Antipater ture a similar story about the rebels’ siege of Roman and
his heir, he gave him a royal salary of 50 talents per royal troops in the Herodian palace (2.430-40, 450-56).
annum (Ant. 17.97). In War 1.61 John Hyrcanus is able In that story Agrippa’s troops are allowed safe passage,
to buy off Antiochus VII, who is besieging Jerusalem, but the Romans initially refuse to surrender because
with 300 talents; the same amount persuades Scaurus to they fear that even a guarantee of amnesty should not
support Aristobulus on the Hasmonean throne (1.129; be trusted (2.438). Their suspicions prove accurate when,
cf. 1.159), and 300 talents also represents Hyrcanus II’s after surrendering and disarming, they are coldly cut
entire fortune—said to be modest for such a personage down—on a sabbath (2.452-56). Whether or not Jose-
(1.268). It would take a concerted effort of Judean lead- phus and his audience would assume a measure of skep-
ers, fanning out through the villages, to collect the mere ticism about the Judeans’ promise here, in 2.54 Josephus
40 talents needed as outstanding taxes for Roman tribute, makes Sabinus’ doubt explicit.
316
just before the outbreak of war (2.403-5), and Gessius Presumably, the remaining forces of King Herod:
Florus’ extraction of only 17 talents for imperial use one garrison of his formidable army (1.293, 342-44),
(2.293) sparked riots. These 400 talents thus represented which had seen action in support of various Roman
a massive fortune. rulers (1.320-22, 329, 364-66, 393-96), was headquar-
307
In the parallel (Ant. 17.264), by contrast, the sol- tered in Jerusalem’s fortress Antonia. Augustus generally
diers take a great part of the entire temple treasury, while allowed eastern client kings to maintain their own, inde-
Sabinus personally seizes 400 talents. As Thackeray pendent armed forces; when their territories were later
points out, that parallel (coming in a section, Ant. 17-19, incorporated as provinces those units would become the
that egregiously imitates Thucydides) recalls Thucydides foundation of “auxiliary” units—cavalry wings, infantry
7.85.3 (τὸ μὲν οὖν ἁθροισθὲν τοῦ στρατεύματος ἐς τὸ cohorts, and other specialty groups that supported the
κοινὸν οὐ πολὺ ἐγένετο, τὸ δὲ διακλαπὲν πολυ), which legions in campaigns (Webster 1985: 35). Shortly before
however talks about enemy soldiers rather than money. his death, Herod could send a general with a “substantial
There may be an echo of Thucydides in this passage, force” to deal with some troublemakers (1.652) and his
too, though it lacks Antiquities’ contrast between open funeral was marked by a large military display (1. 657).
and concealed. The force must have been large, since 3,000 of them
308
Or “ruin.” This is the first of 10 occurrences still remain here after the majority have defected to the
of φθορά in the War. The last two (War 6.412, 429) Judeans. Until this point, War 2.41 has given the Roman
highlight the word’s thematic importance: it is a term procurator only the legion left by Varus along with Sabi-
to which Josephus has ready recourse in his editorial nus’ own rabble of armed slaves; subsequently, only the
descriptions of Jerusalem’s plight: also 2.223, 477, 559; legion has been mentioned (2.45-46)—“the [Roman]
3.528; 4.489, 551; 5.345. soldiers” who contend with the Judean populace (2.47).
309
Cf. the “marvelous works” of 2.49 above. The note here explains that the royal troops of the city,
310
The Judeans’ tenacious determination to fight, no who would have been obliged to help the Romans keep
matter how adverse the circumstances, will become a order, as a client king’s force, mainly deserted at this
prominent theme in War (see Introduction). point to join their compatriots.
36 book two

them [the Judeans].317 The contingent most fit for war, however, 3,000 Sebastenes,318 added
themselves to the Romans.319 Rufus and also Gratus320 were over them, the latter having
the [royal] infantry under him,321 Rufus the cavalry,322 though on account of their strength

317
We should assume, apparently, that most of Herod’s Thus, although the fact that they were commanded
army were Judeans (cf. 1.352) and so were welcomed by Roman officers might seem sufficient to explain their
by the Judean rebels (for exceptions, see the follow- turn to the Roman side here (cf. Ant. 17.266), these royal
ing notes); the same phenomenon will occur with the Sebastene forerunners of those later auxiliary units also
troops of his great-grandson Agrippa II in a later siege represent the ongoing hostility in Josephus’ narratives
(2.437). between Judeans and Samarians (cf. War 2.232-44; Ant.
318
These were troops raised by Herod from Samaria 11.88, 97, 116-19; 18.30). In addition to their com-
(see the note at 2.69), a long-standing base of support manders’ loyalties, their own sympathies make them
where in 27 BCE he had built the city of Sebaste with its natural allies of the Romans (or of anyone else; cf. Ant.
great temple to honor the newly proclaimed “Augustus” 12.257-61) confronting the Judeans.
319
(Sebastos in Greek); see Bernett 2007: 66-98. He had See the note to “Sebastenes” in this section: this
also settled 6,000 colonists (probably veterans) there, group of Samarian fighters and their Roman command-
a move that further enhanced the city’s military ethos ers would naturally sympathize with the Romans against
(1.403). These troops were already then or later supple- the (other) Judeans.
320
mented by recruits from Caesarea: the resulting cavalry Both are common Latin names (cognomina: Rufus,
wing and 5 cohorts (so 3,000-3,500 men [one cohort may reddish; Gratus: pleasing, dear; cf. Kajanto 1982: 282)
have been of double size]) would become the core of the with many derivatiave and diminutive forms. Rufus is
auxiliary force under the Roman prefects and procura- among the 18 most common names (Kajanto 1982:
tors of Judea (Kraeling 1942: 265-74; Schürer-Vermes 29-30): whereas it is found all but exclusively among the
1.364-66): see War 2.58, 63, 74, 169, 236; 3.66. freeborn (Kajanto 121, 134), Gratus was more common
According to Ant. 19.355-66, on the death of the among slaves and freedmen (Kajanto 73). In any case,
Judean king Agrippa I in 44 CE, the people of Caesarea the names suggest that Gratus and Rufus were Romans
seconded to command two of Herod’s élite units. It
and Sebaste celebrated his demise in deeply insulting
would become common in the early empire (1st to 3rd
ways. Those currently serving in the auxiliaries (note
centuries CE) for ex-centurions from the legions, and
the close bond between citizens and soldiers) displayed
then young men of equestrian status (the lower nobility),
images of Agrippa’s daughters on the rooftops of broth-
to be offered a series of commands of auxiliary cohorts
els, where they proceeded to dishonor them in unspeak-
and cavalry wings in the provinces. See Watson 1969:
able ways. For that reason Claudius decided to transfer
24-25; Webster 1985: 145-50; Le Bohec 1994: 26, 46.
to Pontus (N Turkey) the auxiliary cavalry wing and 5
Although technically independent (as an ally of
cohorts drawn from these two cities, replacing them with
Rome), Herod’s army functioned practically as an aux-
Roman detachments. This would be a double humilia- iliary force in its constant availability to Roman com-
tion: for their soldiers to serve so far from home and for manders (see note to “troops” in this section), and so it is
them to be replaced on the home front by legionaries. not surprising that Herod anticipated the auxiliary model:
The populations of the affected cities persuaded Clau- the same close relations with Augustus and Agrippa that
dius to relent, however, and Josephus pointedly observes had won him a Thracian, German, and Gallic bodyguard
that the continued presence of the Sebastene-Caesarean (War 1.672) apparently worked to secure Roman com-
cohorts was a growing aggravation to the Judeans and a manders for some of his forces, which appear to have
significant cause of the later war. been organized on the Roman model—like many client
At 2.236 (cf. Ant. 20.122) the procurator Cumanus armies (Keppie 1998: 141; Shatzman 1991: 198-210).
will use the Sebastene auxiliary cavalry against the In the absence of their own native ruler (Herod, now
Judeans, unfairly intervening in the latter’s conflict with dead), the various constituent groups of the royal army
the Samarians. At 2.270 (cf. Ant. 20.176) the Caesar- and their commanders had to choose where to place their
eans will rely on the support of auxiliary soldiers from allegiance.
Sebaste and their own city to confront the Judeans. Most 321
Note the chiastic structure here. It was typical of
importantly, at 2.296, 301, 305-6, 310-12, 319-29 these later auxiliary forces (see previous notes) that they were
very units will be more than willing accomplices in Flo- divided into cavalry wings (alae) and infantry. cohorts
rus’ (alleged) efforts to generate a war with the Judeans, (cohortes)—and also mixed units (equitata): see Webster
to cover up his own crimes. 1985: 145. Both could be groups of about 500 (most
book two 37

and savvy each of these men [alone] was a deciding factor in war,323 even without a force
at their command.324 53 The Judeans, therefore, kept pressing the siege, making an attempt
upon the walls of the fortress325 and at the same time calling on Sabinus and his men to
leave—not to be an obstacle to those who, after a long time, were restoring their ancestral
self-government.326 54 Sabinus fondly wished to sneak away, but he mistrusted their prom-
ises and suspected that their agreeable posture was bait327 for an ambush;328 given that he
was at the same time hoping for help from Varus,329 he waited around in the siege.
(4.1) 55 Now during all this, things were also being stirred up throughout the coun- General
tryside330 from many quarters, and the opportunity induced331 large numbers332 to [seek] uprising; Judas
son of Ezekias.
Ant. 17.269

commonly) or, less often and perhaps only from the late Athenians from punitively slaughtering the city’s popu-
first century CE (Le Bohec 1994: 26, 46), 1000. Gra- lation.
327
tus and the royal (Sebastene) infantry reappear at War Curiously, Josephus uses this word (δέλεαρ) fre-
2.58-59, 63-64, 74; cf. 2.67-68; cf. Ant. 17.266, 275-76, quently in War 1-2 (1.373, 434, 514; here and 2.158 [of
283-84, 294. the Essenes’ positive theological bait; see note there]),
322
Rufus and the Sebastene royal cavalry reappear at then not again until the end of the Apion (2.184). This
2.74; cf. Ant. 17.266, 294. is an example of his general tendency to use certain
323
Or “one who tipped the scales of a war” (πολέμου words for a while and then drop them. By far the heavi-
ῥοπή). Josephus will use this colorful phrase (ῥοπή est attested user of the word before Josephus was Philo,
means literally the weight that goes in the pan of the who accounts for 23 of the 80 pre-Josephan attestations;
weigh-scales, and by extension the falling of one side Aristotle accounts for 18, Polybius for 9.
328
of the scale) again at 2.470 and in non-personal appli- See the note to “legion” at 2.51. In a story set 70
cations (War 3.396; cf. 5.88). For the image see Iso- years later (2.430-56) Josephus will tell of the Roman
crates, Pan. 50.3; Diodorus 14.21.2; 17.8.7; Rhetorica garrison of Jerusalem, which, after being granted safe
Anonyma, Progymnasmata 1.607; Oenomaus, Frag. passage and while surrendering, is slaughtered in cold
6.63; Dio 50.19.5. The syntax is not entirely clear, and blood. False pledges of safety as ambush set-ups appear
is variously understood by the MSS and critics (Lat. quo- elsewhere in Josephus: Ant. 20.160-61; Life 216, 246-47,
rum uterque ui corporis atque prudentia, etiamsi nullam 294-302.
329
Sabinus has repeatedly sent messengers to Varus,
manum obedientem haberent, magnum tamen momentum
begging for aid (2.45).
belli romanis addidissent); I follow Naber and Thackeray 330
That is: in addition to activities just described in
here. The parallel (Ant. 17.266) devotes a shorter paren-
the capital. The following survey moves artfully S to
thetical statement of praise to the fighters under Rufus
Idumea, then N to Galilee, then E to Perea before return-
and Gratus, rather than to the commanders.
324
ing to the vicinity of Jerusalem (2.60). Josephus thus
Cf. Simon son of Saoul at 2.470, who is such a
gives the impression of a large region in turmoil; he uses
deciding factor on his own.
325
a similar pattern at 2.43 above. Contrast the parallel in
Apparently the Herodian palace in W Jerusalem Ant. 17.269, which locates the following disturbances
(cf. 2.46). At 5.177 Josephus mentions that the walls in Judea proper. That difference of emphasis requires a
enclosing Herod’s palace were 30 cubits high (not count- few other changes: Herod’s former troops rebel in Judea,
ing the towers): about 45 ft. or nearly 14 m. rather than Idumea; the reference to Judas’ location is
326
See the note to “self-government” (αὐτονομία) at less important; and Simon of Perea acts throughout
2.22. Ant. 17.267 has “liberty” (ἐλευθερία) in the cor- the whole countryside of Judea, rather than in raids on
responding place. Given the proximity of this passage nearby Jericho as here.
to others in which members of the Judean élite seek 331
See the note to this verb at 1.5. This is the 1st
“autonomy” under the umbrella of Rome (2.22, 80/91), of 7 occurrences in bk. 2 (out of 12 in War: also
one might surmise that Josephus is developing—in 2.103, 109, 110, 182, 409, 615); it helps to create an
preparation for the Great War—a debate about what true atmosphere of deviance in the antecedents of the war.
freedom or autonomy means. For a different view, see 332
Josephus’ word for “large numbers” here (συχνούς)
D. R. Schwartz 2002. Diodotus’ speech in Thucydides is relatively rare in comparison to the common πολλούς
(3.41-48) may have come to mind for Josephus and his in the similar clause at War 1.5 (see next note). This
audience, for there αὐτονομία is what the Mitylenian word is characteristic of War , however, where it occurs
rebels had fought for (3.46.5; note the interchangeability 33 times, against only 9 in the much longer Antiquities,
with ἐλευθερία: 3.45.6), and Diodotus tries to keep the once in Life, and twice in Apion.
38 book two

sovereignty.333 For example, in Idumea334 2,000 of those who had once been soldiers
under Herod united in arms335 and fought strenuously against the royalists.336 Among the
latter Achiab, the king’s cousin,337 was giving battle from the most fortified positions,
evading the entanglement338 of the plains.339 56 And at Sepphoris of Galilee340 Judas, son

333
Or “kingship, a kingdom.” This clause (καὶ in Jerusalem to Alexandra, daughter of the Hasmonean
συχνοὺς βασιλειᾶν ὁ καιρὸς ἀνέπειθεν) is a nearly Hyrcanus II. He reappears at 2.77, successfully advising
verbatim replica of Josephus’ statement in the prologue the last rebels in Idumea to surrender to Varus.
338
(1.5) concerning the situation throughout the empire fol- Possibly suggesting “close-quarter [combat],”
lowing Nero’s death: “everything was filled with distur- though the word (συμπλοκή) can include any sort of
bances after Nero, and while the opportunity induced complication; perhaps (see next note) Achiab’s enemy
many [to seek] sovereignty (καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν βασιλειᾶν should be understood as having a strong cavalry force.
339
ὁ καιρὸς ἀνέπειθεν) . . . .” The phrasing does not seem Ant. 17.270 expands: Achiab was driven from the
attested in other Greek literature. Most of the MSS read plains into the hill country by the greater expertise of his
“induced many to exercise kingship (βασιλεύειν),” but enemies, and retreated to places that were inaccessible to
possibly under the influence of 1.5 Niese and Thackeray them. An experienced commander himself, Josephus as
follow MS C (βασιλειᾶν [from βασιλειάω] “to aspire author pays attention to the tactical issue of terrain: see
to kingship, sovereignty, kingdom”). The Latin elabo- e.g. War 3.278-79; 4.423; 5.305. In particular, cavalry are
rates ad regni cupidinem. The parallel at Ant. 17.269 suited to open country, whereas infantry, especially those
gives different motives: personal gain and—given that that lack the Romans’ formations and size, fight best in
Idumeans will be next mentioned—animosity toward hills and other protected areas: Life 117, 397; Frontinus,
the Judeans. Strat. 2.18. Josephus implicitly commends Achiab for
334
Contrast Ant. 17.270: in Judea (and see note to knowing which terrain suited him best. Indeed, the later
“countryside” above). “war” (66-73 CE) that is the main subject of this work
335
Josephus’ use of this word (ἔνοπλος) is concen- will consist mainly of Roman sieges (of Judean strong-
trated in War 2 (8 occurrences); otherwise it appears holds), with occasional and important raids or ambushes
twice each in War 6 and Antiquities. See, similarly, the by the Judeans, but not pitched battles in open coun-
note to “bait” at 2.54. tryside.
336 340
Although οἱ βασιλικοί by itself might indicate Sepphoris was introduced in 1.170 as “a city in
royal partisans, not necessarily soldiers—and the mean- Galilee”—indicating the audience’s expected lack of
ing of the word is less certain at 2.62 below—the con- knowledge even of major centers in the region—and as
text here requires royal soldiers or forces. War 2.52 the regional capital created by Gabinius in the mid-50s.
had seemed to imply, however, that Herod’s force had According to 1.304-13, Sepphoris, which would later
disbanded, most going with the Judean rebels, the rest show immediate support for Rome in the war (War 2.511
(3,000 under Rufus and Gratus) to the Romans. The best [but 2.574]; Life 30, 38, 104), also capitulated quickly
alternatives appear to be: (a) that 2.52 was carelessly to the young Herod, who used the site as his base for
formulated; (b) that although royal forces in the Jeru- pacifying Galilee. By Josephus’ time of writing, Sep-
salem area did more or less dissolve into Judean-rebel phoris’ role as chief city of Galilee had been eclipsed
and Roman contingents, this Idumean contest—between by Antipas’ founding of Tiberias (ca. 18-19 CE); then,
different factions of the royal army—was not included in with Tiberias’ transfer to Agrippa II by Nero in 56 CE,
that reckoning, or (c) that the Idumean conflict occurred Sepphoris had regained its primary status (War 2.252-53;
earlier than the disbandment mentioned in 2.52. Of these, Ant. 20.159; Life 37-38 with notes). The city has figured
(a) seems most inherently plausible, since it is hard to prominently in the flurry of studies on Galilee, especially
imagine the royal forces in the Jerusalem area disband- in the controversies over the ethnic and cultural charac-
ing entirely (cf. further 2.62) before the outcome of the ter of the region or its cities, much of which is driven
Roman succession hearings was known. The phrasing by historical-Jesus research (e.g., R.S. Hanson 1980;
here (2,000 against the unnumbered “royal troops”) sug- Freyne 1980, 1988, 2002, 2004; Levine 1992; Horsley
gests that the forces in question remained substantial, the 1995, 1996; Martin Nagy 1996; Edwards and McCol-
main army somewhat more numerous than the rebels. lough 1997; Rabinowitz 1997; Meyers 1999; Reed 2000;
337
Achiab was introduced at War 1.662. When Herod Sawicki 2000; Chancey 2002, 2005; Aviam 2004). See
was about to take his own life, Achiab rushed in and also 2.574 below and, for a brief overview of the archae-
stayed the king’s hand. According to Ant. 15.250, he had ology, Appendix A in BJP 9.
loyally blocked the handing over of Herod’s fortresses
book two 39

of Ezekias341 (the chief bandit342 who in another time343 overran the countryside and was

341
This Ezekias (‫ )חזקיה‬was mentioned briefly at revolutionaries. Similarly, the militant sicarii who will
1.204: he was the first bandit casualty of the young hold out against the Romans at Masada (War 7.252-58)
Herod’s appointment—by his father Antipater—as gover- Josephus describes as bandits (2.254). Ant. 14.271-85
nor or general over Galilee. In Ant. 14.159, 167, the same gives insight into the variety of his usage, describing
story becomes the basis for a trial of Herod before the a “bandit” counter-state with its own unwritten laws in
Jerusalem court on the charge that he has killed without Trachonitis.
due process (14.165-84), and that story in turn becomes In Rome, Cicero’s conflicts with Catiline and Marc
important to Antiquities’ portrayal of Herod (15.3-4, Antony (Phil. 5.23) had long ago established a potent
370). Many scholars have supposed that the son of Eze- political sense for latrocinium; the orator effectively
kias mentioned here was the Judas “of Galilee/Gaulani- denounced both his fellow aristocrat and that man’s fol-
tis” who led an abortive revolt a decade later (6 CE), at lowers as bandits (latrones; Habinek 1998: 69-87). In a
the annexation of Judea under direct Roman rule (War famous inscription preserving a speech of Claudius in
2.117-18; Ant. 18.4-9; Acts 5:37; cf. Kennard 1945-46; 48 CE (CIL 13.668), the princeps refers to a wealthy
Hengel 1989: 331-33; Schürer-Vermes 1.381). But Judas Gaul who had been consul twice, D. Valerius Asiaticus,
was an extremely common name in the period (Hachlili since forced to commit suicide for alleged conspiracy,
2005: 200) and, although Josephus is deeply interested in as a bandit. Now Josephus takes a similar tack, quite
the rebel dynasty of the later Judas, he does not give the possibly with the Catilinarian background in mind—a
slightest hint of such a connection (cf. Smallwood 1981: precedent well known to his Roman audience. He also
153 n. 40). Hengel (1989: 331-33; see his n. 101 for has important support from the Bible—LXX Jeremiah
scholars on each side of the question) explains Josephus’ 7.11 (“you have made my house a den of λῃσταί”)—in
failure to indicate the connection on the supposition that linking the “bandits” of War with temple pollution.
he failed to reconcile different sources—a possibility Josephus is the first known writer to use the Greek
easier to suggest than to render persuasive. compound rendered “chief bandit” (ἀρχιλῃστής), which
342 he employs a remarkable 11 times. A few others had used
“Bandit” language (λῃστής, λῃστεία, latro, latro-
cinium; here ἀρχιλῃστής) was highly charged for Jose- the reverse form λῃστάρχης (“bandit chief ”; Diodorus
phus and contemporary writers. See the note to “bandit” 33.1; Polyaenus 4.9.3; cf. Plutarch, Crass. 22.3; Appian,
at Life 21 in BJP 9; Shaw 1984; Horsley and Hanson Iber. 289), which Josephus avoids. If his preferred form
1988; Hengel 1989: 24-46; Price 1992: 17-24; Firpo is an innovation, it may have been prompted by the Latin
1997: 684-98; Habinek 1998: 69-87; Grünewald 1999; expressions dux or princeps latronum, which Cicero uses
Jossa 2001: 132-146. Although the E Mediterranean hill with distinctly political connotations (princeps latronum
country was infested with real bandits, these were often duxque, of Marc Antony, Phil. 4.27.5; cf. Fam. 10.14.1;
clients of wealthier men, and the label was regularly used Ep. Brut. 13.2.5), or possibly in imitation of the com-
for one’s powerful political opponents—to place them pound ἀρχιπειρατής, “chief pirate,” slightly better
beyond the pale of civil society. The crucial ingredient attested before and around Josephus’ time (Diodorus
was that the opponents be powerful men who instilled 20.97.6; Plutarch, Pomp. 45.4; Polyaenus, Strat. 4.6.18;
fear by their ability to intimidate others and seemingly 5.19.1)—the latter suggestion owed to Martin West and
take what they wanted without recourse to social and Jane Lightfoot in conversation.
political norms. The term thus gained wide currency In any case, Josephus uses the term with strong politi-
in times of civil war, hurled at opponents by those who cal connotations. Thus War 2.275: speaking of certain
considered themselves representatives of order (there- “influential men” (δυνατοί) among those desiring revo-
fore sometimes mutually applied). John of Gischala, lution: “each of these worthless fellows (πονηροί), sup-
Josephus’ aristocratic competitor in Galilee and “close porting himself with his own brigade [or swarm], himself
friend” of the leading Pharisee Simeon son of Gamaliel dominated the band like a chief bandit or tyrant.” The
in Jerusalem (Life 192) is described as a “bandit” (War issue is revolutionary tendencies, not simple robbery, and
2.587, 593) and Josephus’ opponent Jesus is a “chief the word is interchangeable with “tyrant”—a key term in
bandit” (Life 105). When Josephus describes some “ban- the War (cf. 1.10) for leaders of rebel factions; see also
dits” at War 2.264, he similarly implies more than ordi- 4.135; 5.30 (cf. “tyrant” in 5.6, 11). One such tyrant,
nary criminal activity: they “incited many to defection John of Gischala, though a wealthy and well-connected
(ἀπόστασις), exhorting them to freedom, threatening man (Life 188-92), is described by Josephus as a “ban-
death to those who submitted to the imperium Roma- dit” who gradually gathered a troop under him (War
num and saying that they would remove by force those 2.587). And the “chief bandit” Eleazar son of Deineus,
voluntarily choosing slavery.” These are, then, political who retaliated against the Samarians for their murder of
40 book two

subdued344 by King Herod), united a rabble of considerable size and broke open* the royal
armories;345 having armed his group, he made attempts on those who were jealously vy-
ing346 for sovereign power.347
Simon of Perea. (4.2) 57 In Perea348 a certain one of the royal slaves,349 Simon,350 relying on bodily
Ant. 17.273
physique351 and size,352 although he wrapped* the diadem353 on himself, going around with
the bandits354 he had gathered he burned down* both the royal [properties]355 at Hierichous

350
Galilean pilgrims (War 2.253), appears to have had some This Simon is singled out by Tacitus (Hist. 5.9) as
status, given that he was sent to Rome for trial whereas the sole instigator of a Judean revolt at the time of Varus:
his followers were crucified in Judea (2.253). “On Herod’s death, without waiting for Caesar a certain
343
This was about 120 years before Josephus’ time of Simon (Simo quidam; cf. Josephus, Σίμων τις) usurped
writing (i.e., mid-40s BCE). the title of king (regium nomen invaserat). He was pun-
344
Or “taken in hand.” in this case meaning “killed”: ished by Quintilius Varus, who was governing Syria, and
1.204; cf. Ant. 14.159. three children of Herod controlled this tamed people
345
The armories of Sepphoris, presumably: Ant. in three divisions” (et gentem coercitam liberi Herodis
17.271 implies that weapons were stored in the royal tripertito rexere). Tacitus implies that Simon was a native
palace there. Perhaps we should understand that Herod’s ruler who assumed the leadership of his people without
army in Galilee had by now disbanded, so that weapons Caesar’s approval (a role attributed to Archelaus in Jose-
stores lacked protection. Given the sequel, the weapons phus, by that man’s opponents). Josephus, by contrast,
in question were apparently those usable by guerrilla emphatically distances Simon from legitimate govern-
soldiers: swords, javelins, daggers, shields, body armor, ment, portraying him as one of many bandit pretend-
helmets, etc.—not artillery pieces or the like. Ant. 17.271 ers. For the use of τις in Josephus, see Chapman 1998:
emphasizes that Judas armed each individual. 89-91. On Simon, see Farmer 1957-58.
346 351
That is, vying with him. In Ant. 17.272 this verb The redundant phrase εὐμορφίᾳ σώματος
(ζηλόω) is predicated rather of Judas himself. (εὐμορφία normally stands alone) alerts us to the implicit
347
The latter half of this sentence is strikingly simi- critique. How could a slave, lacking the obvious neces-
lar to 2.434, where Menachem “son” of Judas (possibly sity of suitable blood-line and inherited character, aspire
grandson of this Ezekias) does the same thing at Masada: to be king? Josephus has to explain. The only other pas-
he breaks open the royal armories, arms his followers, sage containing both words (Ant. 6.160) also comes in
and with this escort begins to behave like a king. the context of kingship qualifications. There it is God
348
The parcel of land E of the Jordan River and the who contrasts this trait (σωμάτων εὐμορφία), which he
northern part of the Dead Sea, bounded by the Nabatean disdains, with “virtue of soul” (ψυχῶν ἀρετή)—the key
kingdom on the E and S; part of Herod’s territory that qualification for Israel’s king (David). The same sort of
will eventually go to his son Antipas along with Galilee critique seems implied here.
352
(2.95). Perea was first mentioned in 1.586 and Josephus The intimidating size of slaves, who were accus-
will describe it more fully in 3.44-47. He has explained tomed to physical labor, and the consequent terror caused
the name at 2.43. by their banding together in revolt, is emphasized by
349
Josephus’ audience was well familiar with the pos- Diodorus (34/35.2.27-30).
353
sibility of slave revolt; the two Sicilian slave revolts of That is: “boldly declared himself to be king.” For
the late 130s and 104 BCE, respectively, and especially “diadem” see the note at 2.3. Slaves becoming “kings”
the revolt of Capuan gladiators led by Spartacus, a former evoked terrifying memories in Rome, for that is what
shepherd (cf. War 2.60 below), in 73-71 BCE, remained had happened in the storied Sicilian slave revolts led by
etched in Rome’s collective memory (Livy 95.4-97.4; the Syrian Eunus (135-132 BCE; Diodorus 34/35.2.17:
Lucan, Bell. Civ. 2.554; Pliny, Hist. nat. 15.126; 33.49; “having fastened on a diadem and otherwise decked him-
Frontinus, Strat. 1.7.6; 2.5.34; Tacitus, Ann. 3.73; 15.46). self out in royal fashion, he designated his wife, a Syrian
That Tacitus (next note) does not identify this Simon as a from the same city, his queen”) and Salvius (104-101
slave, implying rather that he was a local Judean leader BCE; Diodorus 36.7.4; cf. Alföldy 1988: 67-73). By
with broad support, raises the question—if Tacitus had emphasizing the craze for the diadem and sole power
independent access to the story—whether Josephus has here, Josephus continues his critique of monarchy (and
introduced the slave connection in order to help margin- tyranny); see Mason 2008b.
354
alize this rebel. On ancient slave rebellions in general, See the note to “chief bandit” at 2.56. The μέν . . .
see Bradley 1989. δέ construction highlights the contrast between Simon’s
book two 41

[Jericho]356 and many other villas357 of the rich,358 easily procuring plunder for himself out
of the fire.359 58 And he would have been the first to incinerate360 every decent house had
not Gratus, the commander of the royal infantry,361 taken along the Trachonite362 archers

claim to kingship and his ingrained character—that of outbreaks in areas around the borderlands of Judea.
359
a bandit. The same point is made at 2.62 with Athron- Compare another story of burning and plundering
geus. Given that Simon was a former slave (if he really royal property in a time of revolt, in order to realize
was), it is inherently likely that his “bandit” followers wealth from the goods: Life 68-69.
360
were from the same class; given their reported actions Of 25 occurrences of καταφλέγω in Josephus,
against the wealthy, they would fit the predictable pat- 22 are in War (plus 3 occurrences of συγκαταφλέγω—
tern of slaves revolting to improve their conditions (e.g., attested before Josephus only in a fragment of Posido-
Bradley 1989: 1-17). nius; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 14.2.2; Philo, Flacc. 69; Abr.
355
Here the substantive adjective τὰ βασίλεια is plu- 182), and 13 are in bk. 2—helping to set the atmosphere
ral; at Ant. 17.274 it is singular. In neither case does in the build-up to total war. This is a far higher frequency
Josephus give a noun to clarify which royal belongings at than in any author before Josephus: e.g., Thucydides has
Jericho were burned. We might imagine Herod’s winter it once (4.133.2); Polybius does not use it; Diodorus has
palace with all of its constituent buildings, all the royal it 9 times, Philo 14 times.
361
sites in and around Jericho (see next note), or simply a See 2.52 and notes.
362
vague conception on Josephus’ part (since his Roman The MSS offer a confused array of “Tarichean,
audience did not need to know details). Trachaiote, Tetrarchaiote,” inter alia; but Niese, Thack-
356
Jericho has been mentioned often: 1.56, 120, 138 eray, Pelletier, M-B, and others follow Hudson in reading
(brief description), 170 (made an administrative center “Trachonite” from the Latin (ex trachonitida sagittarios).
by Gabinius), 299-302, 323, 331, 335, 361 (the city and Trachonitis (lit. “rough area”) was formed of a broken
its bounty given to Cleopatra by Antony), 437; 2.3, 43. lava field some 40 km S of Damascus, in the area now
Because of its warm winters and fertile soil, as well as known as the Leja, N/NW of Auranitis (Hauran) and
its proximity to Jerusalem, Jericho had always been a E/NE of Batanea (see Schürer-Vermes 1.337-38; Mil-
seasonal retreat for monarchs, who adorned it with pal- lar 1993: 36-7). The area was a center for bandits, who
aces and fortresses. Naturally, it also became a center could escape there and live in hiding with relative ease
of Herod’s building activity: he constructed a fortress in (War 1.398-99). Given to Herod by Augustus (War 1.398-
honor of his mother on the hills above the city (1.417) 400), then to his son Philip (War 1.668; Ant. 17.189, 319;
and several other buildings in the city itself (1.407; cf. 18.106), it will pass to the kingdom of Agrippa I in 41
1.659, 666), including 3 contiguous palaces of increas- CE (2.215) and then that of Agrippa II in about 53 CE
ing size and a hippodrome (cf. Netzer 2006: 42-80; (2.247; Ant. 20.138).
Appendix A to this volume). Simon’s raids on Herod’s The frequent revolts of the Trachonites against
newly vacated complex make good tactical sense, since Herodian rule (Ant. 16.130, 271-76, 285) and their
this treasure trove lay just over the Jordan River from relentless bandit raids reportedly led the king to estab-
his base in Perea. According to Ant. 17.340, Archelaus lish a tax-free colony of Babylonian-Judean immigrants,
rebuilds a palace there. skilled in archery (Ant. 17.23-26), in Batanea to their
357
This word (ἔπαυλις) occurs only here and at War W—as a buffer zone between Trachonitis and Gaulani-
2.552 in Josephus. tis. The parallel (Ant. 17.275-77) omits any reference to
358
Merciless war against the wealthy had also been these archers’ support for the royal and Roman forces,
the hallmark of the slave revolts in Sicily (Diodorus and it is difficult to see why Trachonites would have
34/35.2.1-3, 10-12, 26, 40, 48)—described by Diodo- been willing to help a Roman commander who had for-
rus as predictable retaliation for mistreatment; Josephus merly served Herod and was now defending his inter-
does not explore such questions here. Whereas this pas- ests. Given the fact that the fighters mentioned here are
sage suggests that these non-royal properties were all in skilled archers, something not otherwise claimed for the
Jericho, Ant. 17.274 has Simon proceed to attack other Trachonites, one wonders (if the text is correctly read
royal holdings in many parts of the country. The liter- as “Trachonite”) whether Josephus does not intend the
ary context is different there (see note to “countryside” Trachonites’ neighbors: the Babylonian-Judeans of Bata-
at War 2.55): Josephus wants to locate the disturbances nea, who would remain loyal to the Herodian family for
mainly in Judea (Ant. 17.269), whereas here he is listing generations (Life 48-63).
42 book two

and the best fighting unit of the Sebastenes363 and gone out to meet* the man. 59 As a
consequence, large numbers364 of the Pereans365 were destroyed366 in the fighting. As for
Simon himself: while he was trying to retreat by way of a steep ravine, Gratus intercepted
him;* as he tried to escape, [Gratus] struck his neck from the side and lopped off [his
head].367
Furthermore, the royal [residences] near the Jordan at Betharamatha368 were inciner-
ated369 by certain others who had united from Perea.370
The shepherd (4.3) 60 And then371 a certain shepherd372 dared373 to lay claim to kingship! Athrongeus
Athrongeus. he was called.374 Strength of body375 and a soul that held death in contempt376 commend-
Ant. 17.278

363
See 2.52 and notes. the effrontery to do Y”—because an aristocratic value
364
See the note at 2.55. system does not praise unpredictable actions outside of
365
The MSS, apparently confused, offer “infantrymen” one’s usual place or role, the essence of daring.
374
(πεζῶν), “sons” (παίδων, MS A), or the ungrammatical Both the Greek MSS and the Latin (Athrongeo
participle παίων (P); but Niese reasonably follows Des- [dative]) favor Ἀθρογγαῖος as the man’s name; at the
tinon’s emendation to read “Pereans” (as also Thackeray, parallel in Ant. 17.278 the MSS show confusion, but
Pelletier, M-B) in view of the parallel at Ant. 17.276. suggest Athronges (Lat. Athonges). The etymology of the
366
See the note at 2.11. name has not been explained. The Jewish Encyclopaedia
367
Although Ant. 17.276 is clear that Gratus “cut off (s. v.) preserves the hypothesis of Solomon Judah Löb
his head,” the language here leaves the object of the verb Rapoport’s (mid-19th-cent.) ‘Erek Millin that the name
unstated. The Latin has diecit, which is vague enough to represents the Hebraized Persian etrog, the citron fruit
mean simply that Gratus killed him. used with the lulav at the festival of Sukkot; Rapo-
368
Following Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B and others. port identified the man with ben Batiach, “son of the
The MSS offer a variety of forms (e.g., βηθαράµιν cucumber” (m. Kelim 17.12), suggesting that both food
ἔνθα in PA, followed by Niese’s editio maior), indicating names related to the remarkable size of his fists. Farmer
confusion. But the site’s location near the Jordan, along (1957-58: 151-54) builds upon the same etymology in
with the parallel at Ant. 17.277 (on which see Marcus- support of his theory that many rebel leaders were Has-
Wikgren in LCL; van Henten in BJP 7 forthcoming) and monean descendants: he notes that Sukkot was especially
the other variants (βηθαραµάθου, MLVRC; betharantas, important to the Hasmoneans (2 Macc. 1.9, 18) and fur-
Lat.), commend biblical Beit-Haram (Josh 13:27), which ther suggests that Athrongeus and his brothers were the
lay on the E side of the Jordan about 6 miles (10 km) sons of Antigonus, who had been king for more than 3
N/NE of the Dead Sea. At Ant. 18.27 Herod Antipas years under Parthian sponsorship before Herod’s seizure
is said to have walled this city—there Betharamphtha, of power. Aside from the inherent weakness of all such
with some MS variation—and renamed it Iulias (cf. War speculations in the absence of evidence, this one runs up
2.168, 252; 4.438) in honor of Augustus’ wife. But since against Josephus’ plain statement that Athrongeus was a
Livia was adopted into the gens Iulia only in 14 CE, as shepherd, whose physical and mental strength were his
a consequence of Augustus’ will, it seems that Antipas chief credentials.
375
originally called the site Livias; cf. A. H. M. Jones 1937: The phrase σώµατος ἰσχύς is a cliché (Antiphon,
275. De caede Herodis 93; Plato, Resp. 371e; Xenophon,
369
See the note at 2.58. Mem. 3.9.1; Cyr. 7.5.65; Ages. 11.14; Aristotle, Physiog.
370
With characteristic variation (see note to “country- 806b, 807a; Resp. 470b; Philo, Dec. 60.2; Plutarch, Cic.
side” at 2.55), the parallel at Ant. 17.277 says only that 29.1; Mor. 2e, 227e), which appears only here in Jose-
the Betharamatha residences were burned by men like phus. See the note at 2.57: Diodorus uses this phrase of
Simon, not that these men were Pereans. the slave rebels in Sicily in 133 BCE, noting that what
371
After this tour around the outlying regions of Judea we might call the high-protein diet of meat and milk, on
(see the note to “countryside” at 2.55), Josephus returns which herdsmen lived, rendered brutish their souls and
to the center. bodies alike (34/35.2.30).
372 376
For a Roman audience this rebel might well recall Though it is not attested in other authors, Jose-
the shepherd-turned-slave Spartacus; see note to “Simon” phus gives the identical phrase (“a soul that despised
in 2.57. death,” ψυχὴ θανάτου καταφρονοῦσα) to Agrippa II as
373
A frequent term in Josephus (about 338 times in the king speaks of the once indomitable Germans now
various forms of the root), usually of reproach—“X had subject to Rome (3.377). Josephus also uses the cliché
book two 43

ed377 this hope to him—and besides these, four brothers like him.378 61 To each of these
fellows he hitched379 an armed century,380 and used them just like generals and satraps381
for the raids, while he himself—exactly like a king—handled the more “august affairs.”382
62 In fact, at the time, although he was wrapping* a diadem on himself,383 he continued

“holding death in contempt” (θανάτου καταφρονεῖν) band”). From the word’s primary sense of “ambush,” in
much more often (War 2.151, 377; 3.356, 475; 5.458; many writers it indicates a small unit suited to this tactic,
6.33, 42; 7.406; Apion 2.294) than any other known reckoned at 16 men (Asclepiodotus, Tact. 2.7-10). It is
ancient author (cf. Ctesias, Frag. [Jacoby] 3c.688f fr. also, however, the standard equivalent of Latin centuria
45 line 248; Critodemus, Frag. [Kroll] vol. 5.2: 53.1; (=80 men). Given that standard usage and Josephus’ use
Posidonius, Frag. [Theiler] 169.98; Diodorus 5.29.2; of the term for a unit commanded by a centurion (see
17.43.6, 107.6; Philo, Abr. 183.2; Musonius Rufus, Diss. note to “century in column” at 2.63), it seems best to
Luc. dig. 10.8-9; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.71; Plutarch, Brut. understand the two cases of bandit and regular forces
12.2; Mor. 210f, 216c, 219e; Appian, Celt. 1.9; Bell. civ. in similar ways. It is unlikely that Josephus means to
5.4.36; Ep. Diogn. 1.1; 10.7; Lucian, Peregr. 13.12; 23.2, give each of these sub-tyrants only a small squad, and
6; 33.6; Marcus Aurelius 4.50.1; 9.3.1; 12.34.1; Polyae- at 2.63 Areius the centurion will lose 40 men from his
nus, Strat. 5.14.1; 7.17.1; Diogenes Laertius 1.6; Dio λόχος but still escape with a good number. So it seems
43.38.1; 46.26.2, 28.5; 62.25; Plotinus, Enn. 2.9.18). It is that the audience might understand something roughly
an important feature of Josephus’ outlook (see Introduc- equivalent to a century.
tion) that he can accord this highly praiseworthy national Given Josephus’ acknowledgment of Athrongeus’
characteristic (Apion 2.294; cf. War 2.151 on the Essenes contempt for death and martial prowess, his use of
and 3.357, 475) even to those compatriots who pros- λόχος here, and in 2.63 of the Roman century, may
ecuted the war long past any legitimacy, under the tyrants serve in part to parallel the martial spirit of even dis-
John, Simon, and Eleazar (5.458; 7.406). reputable Judeans—one of War’s primary themes (see
377
This recherché verb (προξενέω) occurs 4 times Introduction)—with that of the Romans.
381
throughout War (also 1.458; 3.452; 5.66) and once in Satraps (from Old Persian kshathra-pavan, “pro-
Antiquities (16.56), though it is rare after the classi- tector of the country,” where the first term means “coun-
cal period (e.g., Euripides, Ion 335; Med. 724; Sopho- try”) were provincial governors in the Persian empire,
cles, Trach. 726; Oed. col. 465) and before Josephus. under the king. Josephus continues his sarcastic tone by
Its literal meaning is to serve as a “public guest” (i.e., portraying Athrongeus as a would-be Oriental despot,
state-appointed ambassador in or from another place: with “governors” and “generals” doing his bidding. The
πρόξενος)—from there, by degrees of abstraction, to scope and loftiness of his ambition (in contrast to those
“introduce” or “recommend” one person to another for of mere local strongmen) are among his distinguish-
business purposes. Usage of the verb picks up after Jose- ing features. It is impossible to tell from this rhetorical
phus, and we even find “hope” (ἐλπίς) as direct object in portrait whether the man actually cultivated contacts in
the 2nd-cent. Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 7.13.1. the Parthian empire (perhaps the Judean diaspora there),
378
Farmer (1957-58: 152-53) is struck by the paral- which is conceivable, or whether Josephus supplies the
lels between these 5 brothers and the 5 Hasmonean sons Oriental flavor only for dramatic effect.
382
of Mattathias (1 Macc. 3.1-8), which he takes to sup- Or “more solemn, revered, dignified” (σεµνός, here
port his theory that these brothers were also Hasmonean comparative)—elsewhere an adjective of high praise:
descendants. War 2.119; 4.319; Apion 2.221. Although this may be
379
Literally “yoked under” (ὑποζεύγνυµι), a word nothing more than sarcasm on Josephus’ part (as also
typically used of animals brought under the yoke (e.g., perhaps Ant. 2.3), Bradley (1989: 1-17) observes that
Ant. 6.11; 8.41) and so a strong term for one’s military in early modern slave revolts, the rebel leaders often
subordinates. At Apion 2.127 Josephus uses it metaphori- assumed titles that mimicked those of the established
cally of the nations brought under the imperial yoke. order.
383
Here he emphasizes the despotic character of Athron- This is the same language (ἑαυτῷ περιτίθησιν
geus’ brothers. διάδηµα), in the same sort of “although X, he Y” con-
380
Or “band, company, squad” (λόχος). Note the par- struction, as at 2.57. These self-appointed kings offer a
allel at 2.275, where the factional leaders in Jerusalem measure of comic relief to the more serious main story
become effectively bandit-leaders or tyrants over their (not without its own amusing incidents) of Herod’s suc-
respective λόχοι; there the word is used interchange- cession, and thereby drive home Josephus’ caustic cri-
ably with στῖφος (either “unit” or pejoratively “swarm, tique of monarchical government in Judea.
44 book two

for a long while afterwards raiding the countryside with his brothers.384 Killing Romans
as well as royalists385 was their main goal, though none of the Judeans would escape if
he were to come into their hands carrying anything valuable. 63 Once, they even dared386
to surround a Roman century in column387 near Ammaus;388 these men were bringing
over grain and weapons to the legion.389 They actually shot down with spears their [the
Romans’] centurion390 Areius391 and forty of his finest men,392 though when the remainder

384
Once again (cf. 2.57) Josephus contrasts the ease roads to Jerusalem from coastal Joppa, the other of which
of donning a diadem with the difficulty of changing one’s went through Lower and Upper Beit-Horon to the N; it
character: Athrongeus continues to behave as the thug was one of 11 toparchic centers (3.54-55; Pliny, Nat.
he is (in Josephus’ narrative), undercutting his façade 5.70). Farmer (1957-58: 153-54) notes its proximity to
of attending to august matters while leaving the raids to Modein and—trying to support his case for Athrongeus’
his brothers and their bands. Hasmonean ancestry and self-understanding—observes
385
The precise connotations of βασιλικοί in this con- that the Hasmoneans had also won an early guerrilla
text, with King Herod now dead, are uncertain. The word victory at this Emmaus (1 Macc. 3.55-4.25). Although
might refer simply to the remaining royal forces and Varus will soon destroy the town en route to Jerusalem
retainers, without implying anything about their personal through Samaria (2.70), avenging the ambushed legion-
commitments, or it might indicate partisans of one of aries and Areius, 70 years later Vespasian will make it
Herod’s sons. In view of 2.55 the former (royal forces) a base for the Legio V Macedonica in the initial phase
seems to be the main referent. of the Judean campaign (4.444-45); cf. 5.42, 67, 532;
386
See the note to “dared” at 2.60. 6.229 and Appendix A to BJP 1a. Under the emperor
387
See the note to “century” (λόχον [ἄθρουν]) just Elagabalus (218-222 CE) it will be established as the city
above at 2.61. Although it can have many senses (ambush, Antoniniana Nicopolis (A. H. M. Jones 1937: 280-82).
389
place of ambush, unit assigned to an ambush, company, That these men were bringing over both grain and
band), it is often used as the Greek equivalent of the weapons suggests that they were not foraging in open
Roman century—Latin centuria (Dionysius, Ant. rom. country, but rather transporting supplies from a military
4.16; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.59; H. J. Mason 1974: 66-7), depot at Ammaus, perhaps established by the legion that
the legionary unit of 80 men at full strength. Given that Varus had left in Jerusalem, which Sabinus had com-
this unit is commanded by a centurion (cf. 2.71), and mandeered (2.40-41, 45 and notes). This is also sug-
the death of 40 leaves a substantial remainder, it seems gested by the ongoing use of Ammaus as a military base
that a century is in view. We cannot be certain, since a (previous note). The primary importance of establishing
logistical “detail” could also be constructed ad hoc. The a grain supply for the army on campaign is obvious, for
adjective is sometimes rendered elsewhere “en masse”; example, in Caesar’s Gallic War (Bell. gall. 1.16, 23,
see the note to this phrase at 2.12. 26, 37, 40; 2.2) and Josephus’ Life (71, 119, 188); it is
388
So the form in the Greek MSS; cf. Lat. Amathunta. highlighted by the tactical writers Onasander (6) and
Ant. 17.282 reads “Emmaus” (κατὰ Ἐµµαοῦντα)— Vegetius (3.3); cf. Gilliver 1999: 58-62 and Roth 1991:
recalling the name of a site made famous by Luke 243-67. We should expect that both Herod’s army and
24:13’s “road to Emmaus.” Luke seems to situate that the legion now settled in Jerusalem would rely on such
town a mere 60 stadia (7.5 miles/12 km) from Jerusalem local depots. Protection of foraging (and similar logisti-
(though some NT MSS, including Sinaiticus, have 160 cal) details, however, should have been a fundamental
stadia), and may therefore be referring to the village concern of the commander: see Onasander 10.8. Jose-
of Moza (Qoloniyeh, Qalunyia, Colonia), which War phus’ story recalls a famous episode in Caesar’s Gallic
7.217 more correctly puts 30 stadia (ca. 4.25 miles) from War (4.32) in which the 7th legion was nearly destroyed
Jerusalem. The site in view here is rather the modern by British guerrillas while foraging for grain, having put
‘Imwas (or `Amwas), 20 miles (32 km or 160 stadia) down their weapons for the purpose.
390
WNW of Jerusalem. For the debated history and loca- The centurion was easily distinguished from his
tion of the site, largely because of Luke’s Emmaus, as men by his uniform, including the side-to-side crested
well as the philological issues, see Vincent and Abel helmet (Webster 1985: 130-33). On the status and selec-
1932: 277-355. tion of centurions, see Watson 1969: 86-88.
391
Ammaus’ location in the Judean foothills had long This man had fulfilled the promise of his Greek
recommended it as either a temporary camp or a per- name (“martial, devoted to/belonging to Ares [the god
manent military base (Ant. 12.298, 306; 13.15). It was a of war]”; cf. Latin Martius)—held also by two Spar-
major stop on the southern-most of the two main E-W tan kings of the 3rd cent. BCE; it turns up later as the
book two 45

were in danger of suffering the same, Gratus came to their aid with the Sebastenes393 and
they escaped.394 64 When they had performed many such deeds against both locals and
foreigners for the entire war,395 after a while three of them were apprehended—the oldest
by Archelaus,396 the next two having fallen afoul of Gratus and Ptolemy397—, whereas the
fourth398 surrendered to Archelaus on a pledge.399 65 Although this was indeed the final
outcome that was waiting for them,400 at that time they filled all Judea with a bandit-style
war.401
(5.1) 66 Varus was moved, on receiving the documents402 from Sabinus and his com- Varus takes the
field, attacks
Galilee. Ant.
17.286
cognomen of two men coincidentally named Marcus (2.39; cf. 2.80). Josephus has evidently preferred to fin-
Aurelius (Solin 2003: 383). All of the contextual indica- ish his digression on the revolt in Judea (begun at 2.39)
tors here—“Roman century,” conveying supplies “to the even though the conclusion of it will not happen until
legion,” assisted by [not part of] Sebastenes—appear to Archelaus is back in the region. In 2.65 he emphasizes
suggest that Areius commanded a centuria of the legion this chronological split, and when he comes to retell the
itself, rather than an auxiliary troop. It is suprising, story in Ant. 17 he will note (17.284) that he is jump-
however, that a Roman centurion would bear a Greek ing ahead.
397
name. Although the legions had originally accepted only Ant. 17.284 gives this order: one brother fell to
Roman citizens, and continued in principle to be citizen Gratus, another to Ptolemy, then the eldest to Arche-
forces, by the height of the Roman civil wars in the 40s laus (later, as Josephus notes). The Ptolemy in ques-
BCE a desperate need for recruits had forced command- tion appears to be Archelaus’ (and his father Herod’s)
ers to widen their nets (Keppie 1998: 140-44). In the E, “friend,” mentioned several times in this book (2.14 [see
particularly, there was an early and continuing tendency note], 16, 24); see further 2.69.
398
to recruit locally “from Hellenized areas of Syria and Since Josephus mentions the ends of only 4 men,
Asia Minor” (Campbell 2002: 24-27)—whether directly whereas Athrongeus plus his 4 brothers = 5 in total, we
or by incorporation of auxiliary units. So it is not impos- should probably assume that he is describing the broth-
sible that by 4-3 BCE a Greek-named centurion should ers only—the “generals” who led the guerrilla campaign,
be found in a legion based in Syria. from which he as “king” held himself aloof (2.61). This
392
This was about half the unit: see the note to “com- would mean that Athrongeus’ end is unknown. Farmer
pany” in this section. (1957-58: 154-55) speculates, in keeping with his hypoth-
393
This final reference to Gratus’ intervention with esis that the men were Antigonus’ sons, that Athrongeus
his Sebastenes creates an inclusio with 2.52 at the begin- may have fled to Parthia for protection.
399
ning of this survey of rebel leaders (cf. 2.58), which Lit. “right side/hand” (δεξιά), a standard metaphor
described their realignment from the royal troops. See in military contexts for the assurance of safety to an
the notes at 2.52. enemy (Homer, Il. 2.341; Xenophon, Anab. 2.4.1; 7.3.1;
394
That is, the remainder of the Roman logistical cf. Josephus, Life 30, 370). For Archelaus, see the previ-
unit. ous note to his name in this section.
395 400
In spite of the scholarly habit of referring to the That is, when Archelaus later returned from Rome:
war of 66-73 as “the first Jewish (-Roman) war,” Jose- Josephus has jumped ahead to complete the story of
phus confirms here that he considers the major conflict these rebels before resuming the narrative of Archelaus
subdued by Varus also a full-scale war. It involved, in Rome (2.80).
401
according to his portrait, all regions of the country and On bandits, see the note at 2.56. Of Josephus’ 24
various kinds of rebel leaders, and it required nearly uses of the adjective λῃστρικός, almost all (22) are in
the same basic force as the later war—3 legions plus War 1-6, 6 of these in bk. 2. We might call this kind
auxiliaries (2.67)—on the Roman side. In Apion 1.34, of conflict by irregular forces (λῃστρικός πόλεµος) a
speaking of the frequency of war (πόλεµος, as here) in guerrilla war; for the Greek phrase, see Posidonius, Frag.
Judea, he cites the campaigns of the Seleucid Antiochus (Theiler) 47a; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.2.2; 10.17.1; Strabo
Epiphanes and the Romans Pompey the Great, Quinctil- 4.4.2; 11.1.6; Appian, Mithr. 445.
402
ius Varus, and Vespasian and Titus (“in our own times”). The reference is to 2.45, where the Syrian procu-
Talmudic literature also refers to the polemos of Varus rator Sabinus, caught in Jerusalem, has repeatedly sent
(Seder Olam Rabbah 30, ed. A. D. Neubauer); cf. Hengel messengers to the governor Varus—carrying letters,
1989: 327 n. 81; M. Stern 1974: 281. one assumes—pleading for immediate relief. The word
396
This is slightly awkward, since Archelaus has been Josephus uses for the letters here is γράµµατα (things
left in Rome awaiting Caesar’s verdict on the succession inscribed or written; letters of the alphabet) rather than
46 book two

manders,403 to be anxious about the entire legion404 and indeed to hurry to its aid.405 67
So he took the two remaining legions406 and the four wings of cavalry407 with them and
went to Ptolemais;408 he had also ordered the auxiliaries409 from the kings as well as from

408
the more specific ἐπιστολαί (letters or epistles). Jose- The coastal city of Ptolemais (described some-
phus often uses these words interchangeably, however: what idyllically [as Galilean] at 2.188-91) was on the
ἐπιστολή first to establish context and then γράμματα site of the ancient and important Phoenician city of Akko
for variation (War 1.261, 644; Ant. 7.136; 11.26, 97; (Acco, Akre, Acre), mentioned frequently in Egyptian
12.227-28; 13.167; 14.224, 241, 243, 252-54 [decrees and Assyrian texts from about 1500 BCE onward (though
in letters]; 15.171; Life 181, 241, 245, 260-61, 382-83), only at Judg 1:31 and Josh 19:30 [in corrupted form] in
much as Cicero had used the Latin equivalents epistulae the Bible). It was founded on an acropolis about 750 m
and litterae (of many examples, Verr. 1.83; 3.45, 123, E of the sea on the N bank of the River Na’aman (cf.
154; 4.58; Phil. 2.7, 77)—a usage observed by the later “Beleos” at 2.189 below). Its natural advantages, which
critic M. Servius Honoratus, In Vergilii Aenidos libros Josephus elaborates in 2.188 below, include a substan-
8.168. tial fertile plain all around, a natural harbor (on a coast
403
These commanders now include such men as with few such sites), and relatively easy defenses in all
Rufus and Gratus (2.55, 58), though Josephus does not landward directions—eloquently described by officials of
indicate whether they also wrote letters. the British Mandate (Makhouly and Johns 1946: 1-3; cf.
404
This was the legion Varus had left behind to main- now Kashtan 1988; Applebaum 1990 [Hebrew]). After
tain peace in the Jerusalem area (2.40). Akko’s annexation to the Ptolemaic kingdom in ca. 281
405
Cf. 2.66, where Sabinus appears to realize that BCE, it was refounded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus as
Varus will not do much to help him personally, though his eponymous capital in the region. Cf. Strabo 2.5.39;
he would rush to save the legion. 14.4.2; 16.2.25-26, 4.7; 17.3.20; for the archaeology,
406 Appendix A to BJP 9.
Cf. 2.40 and notes: 3 legions were normally sta-
Ptolemais plays an important role in all Josephus’
tioned in Syria at this time.
407 narratives concerning relations between Judea and the
See the note to “cavalry” at 2.52. Although legions
Roman forces of Syria (cf. War 2.187, 201, 502-6; 3.29,
in the early empire acquired small mounted contingents
54, 64-5, 110, 115, 409; Life 118, 213-15, 342, 410). On
(turmae)—perhaps normally of 120 horsemen as Jose-
the coastal route from Syrian Antioch, it was the last
phus indicates for Vespasian’s army (War 3.120), under
stop before Judean territories: Galilee and the Plain of
the command of centurions—those were chiefly sup-
Esdraelon (Jezreel) to the E or the coastal cities begin-
port units for rapid communication and scouting (cf.
ning with Caesarea to the S. As former Galilean com-
War 3.96; Breeze 1969; Webster 1985: 111; Dixon and mander, Josephus is keenly aware of the city’s military
Southern 1992), integrated with the legion and not sepa- importance (cf. Life 105, 118, 213-15). In War 2 it has
rate fighting squadrons. served as Varus’ rendezvous point in the campaign of 4
For cavalry fighting forces (note the distinction at BCE (2.67-68; see notes there). Julius Caesar so favored
3.120) early imperial legions depended, like their repub- the city on a visit in 48 BCE that for centuries afterward
lican precursors, on specialist auxiliary horse units it dated its era from that visit. It remained a favorite
furnished by allies or taken over from them into the point of entry and rendezvous for occupying Roman
provinces. Commonly numbering 500 in paper strength forces: in 52-54 CE, Claudius would establish the city
(Arrian, Tact. 18; Keppie 1998: 182-84), but often well as a Roman colony (Colonia Claudia Felix Ptolemais,
over or under that number (Gilliver 1999: 25), they were or Colonia Claudia Caesaris Ptolemais Germanica Felix
commanded first by chiefs from their place of origin and Stabilis; cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.75), with veterans from Syria’s
then, from some time in the first century, by Roman pre- 4 legions. Isaac (1998: 92) proposes that its foundation
fects (sg. praefectus alae; Webster 1985: 145-46). That must have been a response to ongoing tensions between
Varus has 4 such cavalry units (though only 3 legions), Judeans and Samarians in that period. Under Nero’s
that they have a distinct identity as fighting units, and legate Caius Ummidius Durmius [Quadratus; see note
that Josephus calls them ἴλαι (the standard equivalent at 2.239], according to the best reading of milestone
of the Latin alae, though the terms could refer to less 234A, in 56 CE a 313-mile (504 km), 22-ft (7 m)-wide
distinctive groups), all suggests that the units in ques- Roman highway (via publica) was constructed between
tion are permanent auxiliary cavalry squadrons at Varus’ Ptolemais and the Syrian capital Antioch, to facilitate the
disposal, to be distinguished from the ad hoc levies he is movement of troops and goods (Goodchild 1949); in 67
about to exact from the client kings (cf. Gilliver 1999: CE it served as the rallying point for Vespasian and Titus
25). (War 3.29; Life 410).
book two 47

the chiefs410 to meet up there. And from Berytus,411 as he was passing through the city,
he took an additional 1,500 heavily armed troops.412 68 When the other allied group413
had come to him at Ptolemais,414 and Aretas the Arab415—out of his animosity416 towards
Herod417—had led quite a large force,418 both cavalry and infantry, [Varus] right away
sent a detachment419 of his army into the Galilee—adjacent to Ptolemais420—with one of

409
Whereas here ἐπίκουροι refers to standing forces lay E (beyond Perea) and S of Judea. Cf. Bowersock
contributed by allied dynasts, at 2.502 it seems to indi- 1983: 28-58.
416
cate irregular volunteers. This assembling of legionary Although the word ἔχθος normally indicates the
and auxiliary forces under a Roman supreme commander object of the animosity with a noun in the genitive case
will become a recurring pattern in the various phases of (“hatred of ”), it is a feature of Josephus’ style that he
the war against Rome: 2.500-502; 3.124; 5.42. Clients heightens the force with the preposition πρός and the
of Rome had an absolute duty to supply auxiliary forces accusative case: “animosity [or hatred] against, towards”
on demand, and they would often be keen to do so in the (1.239 [Herod also the object]; Ant. 18.376; cf. Philostra-
interest of local stability. To the Romans they provided tus, Her. 707; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 8.1.8)
417
not only substantially increased manpower, specialist Herod is of course now dead, but the hatred pre-
training (e.g., archery, slingshots, and horses), and per- sumably extends to his kingdom. This notice obscures
haps more easily expendable light infantry for advance whatever political motives Aretas may have had, if he
patrols, but also crucial local knowledge—of terrain, needed any beyond obligatory assistance to the Roman
weather, and other special conditions: see War 3.116 and governor. Herod’s mother Cypros had reportedly come
Gilliver 1999: 23-26. from Nabatea (1.181), and the two client kingdoms of
410
The word δυνάστης (a recognized “power-holder”), Rome had enjoyed close relations in the early years
which occurs infrequently in War (1.112; 6.438), is a (1.123-25, 267), but Herod’s rapid rise under Roman
more general term than “king” and therefore useful for favor alarmed his neighbor so much that King Mali-
including ethnarchs, tetrarchs, and other quasi-royal offi- chus (Maliku) I arranged the poisoning of Herod’s father
cials. At 1.365 it is a useful term for referring to both Antipater in the late 40s BCE. This in turn led Herod to
Herod (a king) and Marc Antony (a Roman general with arrange Malichus’ demise (1.225-37). Although we have
special powers). not heard in War about any direct conflict between this
411
At the site of modern Beirut, a coastal city some- fairly new king Aretas IV (5 years on the throne) and
what more than half-way along Varus’ march from the Herod, at least the ground for such ongoing hostility had
Syrian capital of Antioch to Ptolemais. Berytus would be been laid in these older grievances. According to Ant.
well known to Josephus’ Roman audience because just 16.271-300, 335-55, Herod had serious problems with
over a decade before the story time here (thus 15 BCE), Syllaeus, the faithless viceroy (and reported murderer)
it had been re-founded by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as of Aretas’ predecessor Obodas (Avdat, Obidat) III; and
a Roman colonia—the first outside Italy—populated by because Aretas failed to wait for Augustus’ permission
the veterans of two legions. See Strabo 16.2.19; Millar before declaring himself king, Herod nearly ended up
1990; L. J. Hall 2001-2002; Berlin 2002: 67-68. Status as king of both Judea and Nabatea (Ant. 16.353-54). What-
a colonia had no doubt recommended Berytus to Augus- ever his feelings toward Herod, as a client king Aretas
tus as a site for the hearings on Herod’s charges against was obligated to send military assistance to the Roman
his sons (War 1.536-38). commander.
412 418
Given the city’s recent foundation as a Roman The Greek uses litotes (“not a sparse force”).
419
veterans’ colony (previous note), these troops may have Or “section.” MSS VRC have “he both (τε) sent
included volunteers from those recently retired. a detachment . . . and.” The original may have read “a
413
This is one of Josephus’ most common words certain (τι) detachment,” as at Ant. 17.288. So Varus’
(πλῆθος), used here in a neutral sense rather than the strategy is to divide his army in two parts, for Galilee
pejorative “rabble” or “mob,” as we have often rendered and Judea proper, to deal with the two centers of conflict
it elsewhere. The word is appropriate because he refers at some remove from each other; cf. Smallwood 1981:
to an impersonal mass of men. 112-13.
414 420
See the note at 2.67. At 2.503; 3.38; Life 213 Josephus highlights
415
Aretas (Harithat) IV, whose tomb may be the Chabul (Chabolos), 60 stadia (12 km [7.5 miles]—
famous rock-cut “treasury” at Petra, had just begun his actually a little further) E of Ptolemais, as the frontier
long rule (9 BCE-40 CE) over the Nabatean (Nabatu) point between Ptolemais and Galilee (cf. 2.504); at Life
kingdom (Arabia Petraea); based in Petra, this territory 118 he says the same of Beit Shearim (Besara), which
48 book two

his friends, Gaius,421 as commander: this man routed* those who had come out against
them and also, after capturing the city of Sepphoris,422 both burned* it and reduced* the
inhabitants to slavery.423
69 Now Varus himself pressed on to Samaria424 with his whole force,425 but he held

is further from Ptolemais to the SE. Coastal Ptolemais in 4 or 3 BCE may be exaggerated, in light of the lim-
controlled a substantial surrounding territory (χώρα; cf. ited archaeological evidence for a thorough burning of
2.188 below, with fuller notes), which in effect defined the city in this period (Meyers 2002: 112), but even the
the W limit of (Judean) Galilee. Cf. War 3.35: Galilee’s destruction of substantial parts might provide important
W boundary is marked by “the limits of the hinterland historical context for the youth of Jesus of Nazareth,
(χώρα) of Ptolemais.” At 2.188, however, for momentary whose family lived about 3 miles (5 km) S of the city,
rhetorical reasons Josephus will adopt Ptolemais as part in Nazareth (Mark 1:9; Matt 2.23; Luke 1:26-27; John
of Galilee. 1:45). The restoration of Sepphoris in coming years by
421
On the ancient connotations of “friends,” see the Herod’s son Antipas (apparently renaming it Autocrato-
note at 2.4. The identity of this Gaius is a puzzle, compli- ris, Ant. 18.27; cf. Bernett 2007: 220-27, arguing that
cated by the parallel at Ant. 17.288, by variant MS read- the dedicatee was Gaius Caesar) must have been the
ings both there and here, and by Varus’ known family major economic, social, and political influence in the
relations. MS P here has “his friend [i.e., Gaius]” rather region. This early and singular experience of Roman
than “[one] of his friends” (τὸν αὐτοῦ φίλον rather revenge (Jerusalem did not suffer in the same way—
than τῶν αὐτοῦ φίλων), which gives a better syntax but below) may have helped determine the city’s future path
leaves the other reading hard to explain as a corruption. of whole-hearted cooperation with Rome; see the note
More troubling: the earliest witness (Latin) mentions a to “Sepphoris” at 2.56. In connection with the parallel
son of Varus’ friend Gallus: amici sui galli fi lio his rec- passage (Ant. 17.289) Simonetti appropriately observes
tore praeposito. And although Ant. 17.288 continues as (2002: 743 n. 135) that the severity of the Roman attack
this passage does, with a single actor routing opponents on Sepphoris suggests the complicity of significant ele-
and burning Sepphoris, the antecedent there may have ments of the population in Judas’ violent activities from
two men in view: Varus’ son and one of his friends, both that base (War 2.56; Ant. 17.271).
424
unnamed. Yet the Latin and MSS AM there omit “and,” For Samaria (now Sebaste), see 1.64-65 (destroyed
thus: “Varus’ son, one of his friends.” Further, there is by Hyrcanus and his sons), 166 (repopulated under Gabi-
room for confusion with the words themselves, since nius), 403-404 (Herod’s refoundation) and notes. It is
copyists who did not know the referents might easily curious that Josephus prefers here the ancient name—
confuse “Gaius” [ΓΑΙΟΣ] with “son” (ΥΙΟΣ) and possi- from King Omri’s 9th-cent. BCE foundation as capital
bly even “Galilee” in the accusative (ΓΑΛΙΛΑΙΑΝ) with of Israel (1 Kgs 16:23-24), refounded by Alexander the
a form of “Gallus” (ΓΑΛΛΟΝ). Great in 323 BCE—to the one that applied at the time
As for Varus’ known relatives: there is only one son of this event (and at Josephus’ time); for parallel usage
(Quinctilius Varus), born to his third wife (Claudia Pul- see the note to “Strato’s Tower” at 2.97. The Samarians
chra), but this son was apparently not yet born at the time (now Sebastenes) appear to have been conspicuously
of this episode. Although certainty is out of the question, close to Herod’s regime: probably in 27 BCE he had
the simplest solution to all these problems might be that conspicuously refounded their city as “Sebaste” in honor
ΓΑΙΟΣ misreads an original ΥΙΟΣ, so that Josephus wrote of Augustus, building the first known temple for the cult
here about the son of one of Varus’ friends. Vitucci (624 of the newly established princeps, settling some 6,000
n. 2) thinks that this shadowy figure must have been one veterans, and granting the city a privileged constitution
of Varus’ legionary legates. W. John (PM 24.965), sup- (War 1.118, 403). On all this, see Bernett 2007: 66-98.
ported by Syme (1986: 314-15), suggests Varus’ nephew Herod had from the beginning resorted to Samaria,
Lucius Nonnius Asprenas, who was then military tribune then Sebaste, as a secure haven (1.303, 314, 344, 551;
under Varus. I keep the reading “Gaius” here because the Ant. 15.292-96). He married Mariamme there (1.344)
MS evidence favors it and it would be difficult to find and another wife, Malthace, originated from Samaria
reasons for confidence in other readings. (1.562). Given this consistency of evidence about Sama-
422
A Roman road led directly from Ptolemais to Sep- ria-Sebaste’s special role as a safe city, where Herod
phoris, about 17 km (10 miles) SE. See the note to “Sep- could find rest from his conflict with the Hasmonean
phoris” at 2.56: the inclusion of “city” seems a reminder, Antigonus and his supporters (1.303, 314, 344) or later
for an audience that does not know the region, of why kill his sons with impunity (1.551), it is unclear why
Varus should concentrate his efforts there. Bernett (2007: 69-72) dismisses the Sicherheitsaspekt
423
See the note at 2.56. This destruction of Sepphoris of the city’s founding alleged by Josephus—that Herod
book two 49

back from that city upon discovering that it had not been agitating426 in the disorders427
of the others428 and bivouacked*429 instead near a village called Arous;430 it was the prop-
erty of Ptolemy431 and for this reason it was sacked by the Arabs,432 who were raging433

430
felt vulnerable because of a populace that included men Arus is about 12 miles (20 km) SSW of Samaria as
willing to kill for perceived violation of the laws (Ant. the crow flies, albeit through hilly terrain: a good day’s
15.291)—as merely the later Tendenz of Antiquities, and march for full legionary columns with auxiliaries, support
historically false. It stands to reason, at any rate, that units, and baggage trains (cf. Gilliver 1999: 49-50)—if
Samaria-Sebaste would not be involved in an uprising there had been a direct road. The known Roman road
against the Herodian regime or their Roman masters. out of Sebaste from the second century CE, however,
Nevertheless, once Herod’s son Archelaus is installed as ran first SE through Neapolis (Nablus) and by Gerizim,
king, the Samarians will send a delegation to Augustus then SW to Khirbet et Tira and W from there. This was
to complain about his rule (2.111). a route of nearly 35 km (20+ miles): an extremely dif-
Varus, then, headed almost due S, on a different ficult march in one day for an encumbered army. Since
road from that taken by the officer who headed SE to a straight line connects Samaria/Sebaste, Arus, and Sap-
Galilee (2.68). Samaria (Sebaste) was about 50 miles pho (the next stop: 2.70), there joining the known road
(80 km)—if his route followed the attested (post-70) to Ammaus (cf. War 2.71), in manageable intervals of 20
Roman road, which veered quite a way E after Legio—S and 25 km, dropping to 12 km before the planned sack
of Ptolemais. of Ammaus, it is tempting to posit—albeit without other
425
That is: the bulk of his force, minus the detach- evidence—such a marching route (perhaps a minor road
ment sent into Galilee (2.68). or broad trail). Such a hypothetical route would have run
426
Varus’ decency receives emphasis, also below in through Thamna, about half-way between Arus and Sap-
his dismissal of the Arab auxiliaries for being unworthy pho, and this makes sense: as a regional center one might
allies (2.76); his virtues are enhanced by the implicit expect it to sit on the intersection of E-W and N-S high-
contrast with those around him—Sabinus (cf. 2.17) and ways (according to 2.567, John the Essaeus was given
the Arabs. command of Thamna region, including Ammaus—again
427
See the note at 1.4. suggesting a road between these two sites; cf. 3.55).
428
See further 2.96: the Samarians are rewarded for Moreover, there is a known road on the southern-most
failing to participate. This notice anticipates a theme of 12 km leg of the proposed route, from Ammaus to within
Samarian exemption from Judean troubles, especially half a mile of Sappho, which seems to stop abruptly. It
prominent in the Antiquities: Josephus will claim that is admittedly difficult to imagine a road from Sappho to
they distanced themselves completely from the Judeans Samaria/Sebaste, given the number of E-W ranges and
when the latter faced troubles (Ant. 9.290-91; 11.340), rivers that would need traversing, but there are substan-
especially in relation to rebellious movements (Ant. tial N-S ridges. Varus’ itinerary—Samaria, Arus, Sap-
12.257). Within War , although Josephus does not elabo- pho, Ammaus—, which happens to track a straight line
rate the point, even in the Great Revolt Samaria will with conceivable day-marches, is difficult to understand
remain chiefly a safe area for the Romans, garrisoned if one follows only the known roads, far to the E and W
as a base (3.309); nevertheless, Josephus reports a mas- of these sites, and passing through much larger sites that
sacre of (unarmed?) Samarians by the Roman general go without mention.
431
Cerealis, at Vespasian’s direction, with 3,000 infantry See the note at 2.14, also 2.24; Ptolemy has most
and 600 cavalry. recently been mentioned at 2.64, where he is with Gratus,
429
This verb (αὐλίζοµαι), which appears 12 times in on the Roman side, putting down the Judean rebels.
432
the War (also 1.277, 289, 334, 370; 2.301, 542; 3.59, 85; That is, the auxiliary force contributed by the
4.285, 660; 5.51) but only once elsewhere in Josephus Nabatean king Aretas IV (2.68).
433
(Ant. 1.278), by itself suggests something much more This is an odd word choice for Josephus, who usu-
transient and open to the air (explicitly War 1.370; 3.59; ally predicates this kind of rage or wrath (µῆνις) of God
4.285; Ant. 1.278) than the terms for military camps (War 6.41; Ant. 1.164; 2.344; 4.8; 8.112; 9.104, 246;
he uses in Life: the digging of a fenced camp (χάραξ: 15.299), in keeping with the general tendency of clas-
Life 214, 395, 399, 400, 420) or establishing a base sical authors (cf. LSJ)—so much so that he can use the
(στρατόπεδον: Life 214, 398, 405). Although he also cognate noun µήνιµα without qualification as a cause
uses this verb in connection with a thoroughly dug-in of divine wrath (Ant. 16.188). Yet just as a few cases of
camp in his famous excursus on the Roman army (War spectacular human (albeit heroic) rage appear in the clas-
3.85; cf. 2.542), that seems to be a matter of varying sical texts, most famously Achilles’ in Homer (Il. 1.1),
diction (cf. στρατόπεδον, at 3.82, 89). so Josephus occasionally—perhaps ironically—can have
50 book two

against even the friends of Herod.434 70 From there he proceeded* to Sappho,435 another
fortified village, which they likewise sacked along with all the adjoining [villages]436 they
encountered. Everything was filled with fire and carnage,437 and nothing could withstand
the ravages of the Arabs.438 71 And Ammaus was also incinerated439 after its residents
had fled:440 Varus directed this on account of his anger that Areius and his men had been
butchered.441
Varus in Jerusa- (5.2) 72 From there he advanced on Hierosolyma, and merely by being seen with his
lem ends revolt. force he thoroughly scattered [those occupying] the camps of the Judeans. 73 Whereas
Ant. 17.292
these men442 absconded, having fled443 up into the countryside,444 those in the city received

ordinary humans carry such vengeful anger: Ant. 18.188 destroyed Sappho and likewise all the approaches they
(Tiberius toward Agrippa I); Life 392 (Galileans toward encountered, which does not render good sense. Niese
Tiberians), and here. Josephus appears to have chosen reasonably follows Destinon’s emendation to the adjective
the more classical form of this verb, µηνίω (also in the προσόρους (“on the border of, contiguous, adjoining”),
other occurrences, at Ant. 8.112; 15.299), rather than the meaning that they destroyed Sappho and the nearby sites.
common Hellenistic form µηνιάω (see LSJ)—unless the If that is correct, Josephus uses πρόσορος—attested
variant reading of MSS MLVR is correct—in keeping before his time only in Xenophon (Cyr. 6.1.17)—only
with the classicizing style of War (see Introduction). here in War , also at Ant. 5.82 (which makes the use here
434
That is, the Arabs were hostile not only to Herod more plausible).
437
himself (so 2.68) but even to friends such as Ptolemy. This is a concise description of the horrifying but
This notice indicates a triangle of animosities: some normal consequences of Roman military intervention
Judeans rebel; they are subdued by Roman legions and against a rebellious city, which would be well known
units of the royal Herodian forces, such as those led by to Josephus’ Roman audience: cf. Polybius 10.15.4-6;
Gratus, Rufus, and Ptolemy, though most royal forces Ziolkowski 1993; Campbell 2002: 70-76. Blood and fire
have supported the rebels (2.52); the Arabs join the cause dominate the pictorial scenes of Jerusalem’s destruction
in order to subdue the Judean rebels—but because this in the triumph described by Josephus (War 7.143-45).
was Herod’s kingdom and they hated him, they also turn There seems to be irony implied here, however, since it
is the neighboring Arabs (cf. 2.76) who usurp the Roman
on friends of Herod such as Ptolemy, who are ostensibly
role of sacking cities—impulsively, rather than as a con-
on the same side in this conflict (against the rebels). The
sequence of the city’s proven hostility (cf. Onasander
Latin offers an alternative and puzzling reason for their
34.4; 35, 38).
sacking of Arus: “a possession of Ptolemy, afterwards 438
This portrait of the Arab auxiliaries’ barbarity
seized by the barbarians and by the friends of Herod,
(cf. 1.101) in contrast to the proper soldiering of Varus
who were hostile to Ptolemy,” which has no support in
builds up to 2.76, where Varus will dismiss the Arabs for
the Greek MSS.
435
fighting out of private resentment and vengeance; it also
See the note to “Arous” in 2.69. This village (mod. anticipates War 5.550-56, where Titus will have exactly
Saffa) lies about 25 km SSW of Arus, continuing a direct the same problem with his Arab allies’ waging war with
line from Samaria through Arus to Ammaus, though no unrestrained passion, implicating the Romans in their
known roads follow this line until the Sappho-Ammaus “savage brutality and hatred of the Judeans.”
leg. Such a direct route would have presented a challeng- 439
See the note at 2.58.
ing but manageable day’s march (through hill country) 440
This appears to be another example of Varus’ vir-
for an encumbered army. If instead Varus followed the tue (cf. 2.69, 75-76). According to 2.63, Areius and his
known main road SW to Lod (Lydda) and then SE to men had been killed by Athrongeus’ rebels; the inhab-
Sappho, his army would have faced a trek of some 30 itants of Ammaus are not implicated. Varus had to do
miles (50 km). According to Life 269, it was possible something to exact punishment for the outrage against
to reach Jerusalem from Galilee (Xalot) via Samaria Roman forces, but because he realized that the residents
in 3 days, which would require at least 35 km per day of Ammaus were innocent, he allowed them to leave
(assuming the known highway from Samaria S and a beforehand.
fairly straight continuation N into the area around Xalot, 441
Or “had their throats cut” (see the note to this
though this last is unattested). phrase at 2.30), though the most literal sense is not indi-
436
The MSS read προσόδους (a noun meaning [in cated in the story of the event (2.63 above).
442
the singular] “road leading up to, approach”; abstractly, That is, the Judean rebel soldiers who had camped
“income, revenue.” Josephus would be saying that they around Jerusalem.
book two 51

him and were busy off-loading445 the responsibility for the rebellion,446 saying447 that,
whereas they themselves were not agitating, on account of the festival448 they had neces-
sarily received the rabble, and so it was rather a case of [their] being besieged along with
the Romans than of [their] making war along with the rebels.449
74 Yosep,450 the cousin of Archelaus,451 and Rufus along with Gratus452 had previously
gone out to meet453 him, leading—together with the royal army454—also the Sebastenes.455
Those from the Roman legion456 [had gone out] too, arranged in the customary man-
ner.457 (Sabinus did not stay put458 so as to come into the sight of Varus, but left the city

443
The conjunction of the two verbs creates a colorful contrast for a more awkward play on “besieging,” active
phrase (ᾤχοντο φύγοντες), emphasizing their immediate and passive.
and complete dispersal: colloquially, “they high-tailed it 450
This, the same name as our author’s (‫)יהוסף‬, is
out of there.” Josephus will use the same phrase, which is the 2nd most commonly attested masculine name in the
best attested beforehand in Euripides (Andr. 1055; Orest. period (cf. Hachlili 2005: 200); Josephus himself men-
1486; cf. Hipp. 878; Aristotle, Frag. var. 9.56.665), of tions some 19 Yoseps, and 3 of the 10 generals chosen
the young Agrippa avoiding his creditors (Ant. 18.163). to lead the war will bear this name (2.563, 567, 568).
444
The rugged Judean hills with their thousands of Although the other most popular names (e.g., Simon,
caves were the well-known refuge of those fleeing trou- Judas, Mattathias) had Hasmonean roots (cf. Farmer
bles in Jerusalem from the time of David (e.g., 1 Sam 1957-58), and although “Joseph” has some slight—con-
23:29; 24:1) through the Hasmonean revolt (War 1.36) fused— Hasmonean connection (2 Macc 8.22), it seems
to the Bar Kochba Revolt in 132-135 CE and later. The that this name was revered mainly for the biblical patri-
caves of Wadi Murabba’at have been particularly reveal- arch and namesake of the eponymous tribe, praised in
ing of refugees’ lives. Hasmonean literature for (a) an obedience to divine law
445
Thus, whereas the rebels in the countryside that led him to become “lord of Egypt” (1 Macc 2.53)
removed themselves bodily, this was not an option for and (b) his sexual self-control (4 Macc 2.2).
the residents of Jerusalem, who could only try to remove The Yosep in question here has been introduced at
the blame from themselves. Josephus’ tone seems play- 1.562 as Herod’s nephew and son-in-law—husband of
ful, evoking the terror that Roman legions could arouse Herod’s daughter Olympia (by Malthace). According to
in otherwise confident rebels. Ant. 18.134 he was the son of Herod’s brother Yosep
This colorful verb (ἀποσκευάζω) is distinctive: the (who had died at Jericho before Herod’s reign began,
19 occurrences in Josephus’ corpus (6 in War 2) repre- War 1.323-24).
451
sent a much higher frequency than the occasional exam- Ant. 17.294: “cousin of King Herod” (but see pre-
ples we find in earlier authors (1-2 each in Polybius, vious note). Josephus does not often speak of cousins,
Diodorus, Dionysius, and Philo). Striking is the nearly and all but one (Ant. 1.290) of the 12 occurrences refer
verbatim clause (with “responsibility” and “rebellion”) to members of the complicated Herodian family; this is
in Agrippa’s speech at 2.403 and its echo at 2.418. the last cousin to appear in the War . Josephus gives no
446
Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις); see note systematic account of the royal army, but the audience
at 2.39. would not be surprised that the monarch’s family mem-
447
Often in Josephus, as here, this simple verb (λέγω) bers keep appearing as senior officers (cf. 2.55).
452
flags an intended deception. See the note to “said” at This pair, especially Gratus, have been featured
Life 22 in BJP 9. in the foregoing narrative as officers of the Herodian
448
According to 2.42-43 a vast angry mob had flooded army who had broken for Roman loyalty: 2.52, 58-59,
into Jerusalem for Pentecost that year. Throughout War 63-64.
453
Josephus develops a consistent and plausible picture of This compound verb (προυπαντάω) appears only
the festivals (Passover, Shavuot/Pentecost, Sukkot/Taber- here in the War , only at Ant. 8.7 otherwise in Josephus.
454
nacles) as times of trouble: 2.10-11 (see note to Pascha), Cf. 2.52, 55, 62 and notes: it is unclear from the
42-43, 224, 255. preceding narrative how much of the Herodian army
449
The verbal elegance of the Jerusalem leaders’ remains intact.
455
defense intensifies the ironic tone: the matching com- See above 2.52, 58, 63 and notes.
456
pound infinitives stress “being besieged along with” This is the legion left in Jerusalem by Varus at
(συµπολιορκηθῆναι) rather than “making war along 2.40; cf. 2.45, 63.
457
with” (συµπολεµῆσαι). In the interest of varying his The awe-inspiring order of the legions, though
language, at Ant. 17.293 Josephus will abandon this neat a familiar subject to Josephus’ Roman audience (e.g.,
52 book two

beforehand for the sea.)459 75 Now Varus, using a detail from his army, sent out around
the countryside after those responsible for the commotion;460 and of the many who were
rounded up, those who showed themselves less disturbance-prone461 he placed under
guard,462 whereas those who were most responsible—about 2,000—he crucified.463
Varus pacifies (5.3) 76 Now it was reported to him that throughout Idumea myriads464 of heavy in-
Idumea. Ant. fantry were still holding out.465 When he found the Arabs not possessing the character of
17.297
allies466 but rather serving as soldiers for the sake of private emotion,467 and damaging the

Onasander 27, 30), is a significant theme of his narra- der Ianneus against his own subjects (1.97, 113). This
tive—partly for ironic purposes; see Introduction and is the first instance of Roman crucifixion—“the most
Hadas-Lebel 1987: 832-36. This order (κόσµος; here the pitiable of deaths,” as Josephus remarks (War 7.202; cf.
verb κοσµέω) is described in general at 3.93-97, where 5.449-51). For crucifixion as the most disgraceful form
κόσµος (3.93) is largely interchangeable with [ἐν ἔθει] of death, see 4.317. Crucifixion, which seems often to
σύνταξις (3.74). See further 3.115-28 (διατάξας . . . have followed a severe beating, was both a painful and
Ῥωµαίους ἔθος); 5.47-53; 6.18. Indeed, the Greek word a humiliating way to die. Although not invented by the
most consistently used for Latin legio, τάγµα, means Romans, it was widely used by them, especially for
“[what is] ordered.” slaves, bandits, rebels, and provincial criminals (as here):
458
Or: “not being able to bear or tolerate, not submit- Quintilian, Decl. 274; Seneca, Ep. 101; Appian, Bell.
ting to the ordeal of ” (οὐδ´ . . . ὑπομείνας); cf. 2.82, civ. 1.120; Josephus, War 2.241, 308; 4.444; 5.449-51;
where it has one of these senses. Evidently we should Life 420. Roman citizens and especially members of the
understand that Sabinus knew himself to be guilty for the upper classes were usually either subject to more instant
steps he had taken in relation to Herod’s estate without forms of execution (beheading), pressured to take their
awaiting orders from Rome (cf. 2.17). own lives, or exiled. On crucifixion, see Hengel 1977;
459
The sea in this case must be the (Latin) mare Tzaferis 1985; Zias and Sekeles 1985.
464
nostrum, the Mediterranean, not the Sea of Galilee as Greek µύριοι can mean either an immense, count-
often in Josephus. Presumably Sabinus travels via coastal less number or, as a definite number, 10,000—often
Caesarea, from where he could head N to Syria by ship signaled by other numbers such as 2 or 3 (times) or
without risking an encounter with the legate’s troops on a military context requiring a count. It is diffi cult to
land routes. This notice confirms the impression thus far know which is intended here. At 2.55 Josephus has said
that the equestrian agent of Augustus, Sabinus, was at that 2,000 deserters from Herod’s army joined the rebel
odds with the distinguished senator Varus (cf. 2.16-17, cause in Idumea. Although 10,000 could be intended
45, 66). here, “vast number” seems all that is needed.
460 465
See the note at 1.4; this word (κίνηµα) is a key In the verb (συµµένω), the prefix συν indicates
term from the prologue. more the bond with the leader or cause (in effect, loy-
461
This (θορυβώδης) is another rare word in War alty) than with the unit: the point is not that a large unit
(also 4.321); otherwise only at Ant. 4.36 in the clas- remained intact, but that many soldiers remained loyal to
sic rebellion against Moses. Before Josephus’ time, the rebel cause. In Josephus the verb occurs only in War ,
the term is best attested in medical, physiological, and in keeping with its military connotations: holding ground
scientific contexts (Hippocrates, Prisc. med. 10; Morb. or remaining loyal in the face of serious threat (1.386;
pop. 5.1.95; 7.1.121; Ep. 19; Aristotle, Hist. anim. 632b; 2.205, 334; 3.314, 461; 6.245; cf. Thucydides 1.18.3;
Strabo 11.3.3), picked up occasionally for political or 4.74.4; 7.80.4; 8.73.5; Isocrates, Or. 4.148; Xenophon,
philosophical application: Plato, Tim. 42d; Leg. 671a; Hell. 7.1.2).
466
Polybius 29.11.2. The latter usage becomes much more Character (ἦθος) was a central subject of discus-
popular with Josephus’ contemporaries in the “second sion in ancient philosophy and rhetoric; see the Intro-
sophistic”: Plutarch, Cam. 27.3; 33.6; Cor. 17.4; Flam. duction to BJP 9 as well as Life 426, 427 and 430
10.6; Luc. 32.3; Ag. 13.4; Mor. 564b, 656f, 678c, 714d, with notes. In addition to character in general (i.e., of
etc.; Athenaeus, Deipn. 14.1 [Kaibel]; Galen 10 times; the aristocratic male), there was often thought to be a
Lucian, Ver. hist. 2.5; Pseudol. 16; Merc. cond. 24; fixed character proper to each role in life: youth, old
Arrian, Anab. 1.25.6; Cyneg. 7.3. age, male, female, slave, friend, ally, enemy, and so on.
462
On Varus’ virtues of self-control, justice, and clem- Here, evidently, the term is ironic: the “alliance” is to be
ency, see also 2.69, 76-77. strictly in the interests of Rome, which do not include
463
The first crucifixions in War occur about a century the Arab’s resentment of Herod. Ant. 17.296 clari-
and a half before this story time, conducted by Alexan- fies the point: Aretas’ army had frequently disobeyed
book two 53

countryside, exceeding his own policy by virtue of their animosity toward Herod,468 he sent
them away* and with his own legions kept pressing hard after those who had revolted.
77 Yet before it came to blows469 these men handed themselves over, Achiab having so
advised them.470 Although Varus dismissed the charges against the bulk [of them],471 he
sent the commanders to Caesar472 to be interrogated. 78 And whereas Caesar pardoned the
others, certain relatives of the king—for there were some among them who were related to
Herod by ancestry473—he ordered punished474 because they had undertaken military action
against a king475 of the same house.476 79 And so Varus, when he had stabilized matters

Varus’ directives (and requests) out of a desire for gain. names—that many rebel commanders were also Herodi-
467
The emotion in question is “animosity” or “rage” ans. This opens up the possibility (we lack evidence
according to 2.68-69; see notes there. The Arabs thus to know) that the issues may not have involved sim-
represent the antithesis of Roman military principles, ply primarily pro- or anti-royal sentiments, as Josephus
which are all about order, discipline, and relentlessly has implied, but related to some other power struggles
rational planning: see 3.88, 93, 100, 105; 4.45; also (possibly ideological ones too) among Herodian com-
Onasander 6, 32; Harris 2001: 201-28; Sherman 2005: manders. However that may be, it makes good sense in
65-99. general terms: rebels in a class-based society needed
468
Josephus thus concludes, with an implicit moral, credible leaders, and many or most leaders of Herod’s
the theme of the Arabs’ unworthy motivation (begun in army would have been either relatives or other particu-
2.68-69). larly trustworthy others such as seconded Romans (e.g.,
469
This (πρὶν εἰς χεῖρας ἐλθεῖν, “before getting to Rufus and Gratus).
474
[the point of] hands”) is a formulaic phrase for Jose- Lit. “ordered [someone] to punish [them]”
phus: War 1.93; 2.514; 4.420, 528; 5.52, 102; 6.22; Ant. (κολάσαι προσέταξεν)—omitting the personal object
9.200; 20.78; without πρίν, Ant. 5.73, 268; 15.114, 120. of the order. Contrast Ant. 7.135; 14.327 (προστάσσω
His model may be Dionysius, who uses the phrase 5 X [dative] κολάσαι Y [accusative]) and Life 429 (he
times (Ant. rom. 8.84.1; 9.53.4, 64.1; 13.8.2; 14.9.4) and ordered Y to be punished, κολασθῆναι προσέταξεν).
another 4 times without “before” (πρίν) (Ant. rom. 9.2.4, Although κολάζω basically means “check, trim, prune”
50.2, 56.4, 70.1)—the only form attested before Diony- and so metaphorically “discipline, punish,” here as often
sius (Xenophon, Anab. 1.2.26; Cyr. 3.1.3; Posidonius, in Josephus it seems to be a euphemism for execution;
Frag. [Jacoby] 2a.87f.43). Between Dionysius and Jose- cf. Ant. 17.295, which uses κολάζω for ἀνασταυρόω
phus it turns up in Philo, Mos. 1.263 and Onasander 19.1; (crucify) above (War 2.75). Although the omission of
29.2. From Josephus’ time onward the phrase becomes an implied personal object is not in general worrying, I
popular: Plutarch, Mar. 19.6; Luc. 31.8; Ant. 39.6 (with- am unable to find a parallel for this phrase; the closest
out πρίν); Tim. 27.8; Aem. 26.6; Marc. 20.1; Arist. 19.7; is perhaps Diodorus 19.96.4, which has a clear personal
Phil. 6.13; Luc. 25.5; Mor. 597e, 873b; Phlegon, Frag. antecedent object for the “order,” though in the expres-
[Jacoby] 2b.257f.40. sion itself (προστάξας κολάσαι) the dative object is
470
In 2.55 we learned that Herod’s cousin Achiab, left understood.
475
who had prevented the king’s suicide in the latter’s final Since Archelaus was emphatically not a king (2.2,
days (1.662), had been in command of royal troops in 26) or even quasi-king (ethnarch) before the decision
Idumea and so became the enemy of those soldiers in taken in the following story, the possibilities appear to
Idumea who joined the Judean revolt. It stands to reason be (a) that this action of Augustus did not take place
that his admonitions, as their former commander, would until Archelaus was back and installed as ethnarch or
be particularly effective in persuading such men to give (b) that the king in question is the deceased Herod, and
up the fight. the offense is against his legacy.
471 476
This is another application of πλῆθος, often ren- Ant. 17.298 elaborates: they had shown contempt
dered “mob” or “rabble” in this translation. for justice in taking up arms against family. Although the
472
That is, Augustus. basic principle of filial piety seems uncontroversial, we
473
This intriguing notice finally exposes a bias in need to recall that ancient royal families were normally
Josephus’ account: whereas he has implied that the beset by intrigue, murder, and removal of potential rivals
rebel movement was anti-Herodian, with the Herodian by imprisonment or execution: War 1.70-73, 120, 273,
commanders (2.55, 74) ranged firmly on the reactionary 433, 445, 467472-73, 478, 481, 535-37, 550-51, 639-40,
Roman and loyalist side, he now allows—yet without 663-64. Ironically, in the main story, 3 sons of Herod
54 book two

in Hierosolyma and left behind as a garrison the same legion as before,477 returned* to
Antiocheia.478
Delegation from (6.1) 80 With Archelaus back in Rome, another legal case479 was being put together*
Jerusalem to
Rome; Caesar
against Judeans who had gone out* as emissaries before the rebellion,480 with Varus’
reconvenes indulgence,481 with a view to the self-government482 of their nation.483 There were fifty of
council. Ant. them present, but over 8,000 of the Judeans in Rome484 were standing by in support.485 81
17.299
After Caesar assembled a council486 of the Romans who were in office487 and his friends488

who have survived his purges are now contending with See Barclay, 1996: 295. If accurate, Josephus’ numbers
each other in Rome for kingship. could support a total Judean population in Rome (includ-
477
See 2.40 and notes. ing women, children, and the elderly) of 30-40,000—a
478
See note at 2.18. Here ends Josephus’ lengthy significant proportion of the city’s estimated 1,000,000
digression on the Varian war, which was prompted by the population. This passage is one of the few explicit indi-
notice at 2.39 that Augustus, while pondering Herod’s cators of the Roman-Judean community’s keen interest
succession, had received news of a Judean revolt from in the political affairs of the homeland. Two generations
Varus. It effectively puts another spin on the question earlier, Cicero had famously complained, in his defense
of kingship and diadem-lust, as a counterpoint to the of the Asian governor Flaccus, about the size of the
Herodian story, as well as anticipating many themes of Judean crowd in Rome and its influence in the popular
the later war. assemblies (Flac. 66-69).
479 485
I.e., in addition to the case brought in defense The verb συµπαρίστηµι (here imperfect middle/
against Antipas’ rival claims (2.20-25), which has been passive) occurs in Josephus only in this passage (again
heard by Caesar and his advisory council (2.26-38). at 2.82) and earlier at 1.243. He has the cognate agent-
480
Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις); see note noun συµπαραστάτης (“comrade, one who stands near
at 2.39. to help”) at Ant. 7.136; cf. Sophocles, Phil. 674; Aristo-
481
Or “trust, assignment, direction.” The implication phanes, Plut. 326. The double prefix—indicating “along-
appears to be that Varus would not have allowed them side” and “with”—stresses the sense of solidarity. But
(presumably leading members of the élite) to travel dur- the verb is extremely rare before Josephus’ time (Oed.
ing the war. Indeed the absence of so many established col. 1340; note the similar συµπαραστατέω in Aeschy-
leaders no doubt facilitated the many outbreaks described lus, Prom. 218; Aristophanes, Ran. 387), best known
above. This sentence does not imply that the rebellionis from a saying of the 3rd-cent. BCE comic playwright
over by this point, for Archelaus, after his return from Menander: “For every man, a daemon stands nearby to
Rome, will play a role in the suppression of the conflict help (συµπαρίσταται), instantly present, mystagogue of
(2.64-65). Cf. the reference to Varus’ kindness in “send- the good life” (quoted in Plutarch, Mor. [Tranq. anim.]
ing” another party from Judea at 2.83. 474b; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.14.130). It is pos-
482
See the notes to “self-government” (αὐτονοµία) sible that Josephus picks up the verb from Sophocles’
at 2.22, 53: this is autonomy under Roman governors. Oed. Col. 1340, given the likelihood of Sophoclean
Cf. a passage in Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrH 3.354), influence on the tragic Herodian story of Josephus, in
in which an embassy of Greek cities requests self-gov- which this verb has otherwise appeared (2.244).
486
ernment; also Smallwood 1981: 108-10. This is again the consilium principis; see the note
483
The parallel at Ant. 17.300 is somewhat clearer: to “council” (συνέδριον) and verb at 2.25.
487
“An embassy of Judeans arrived in Rome, Varus hav- Compare the wording here (ἀθροίσαντος δὲΚαί-
ing permitted the nation their mission for the sake of σαρος συνέδριον τῶν ἐν τέλει Ῥωµαίων) with 2.25 ([ὁ
requesting self-government.” Καίσαρ] συνέδριον µὲν ἀθροίζει τῶν ἐν τέλειῬωµαίων).
484
This figure (also at Ant. 17.300) is often used The close verbal parallel highlights the resumption of the
along with Ant. 18.84 (4,000 Judean males of military earlier story of the succession hearings.
488
age were conscripted in 19 CE, though many others who The term “friend” (φίλος; Lat. amicus) had a dis-
refused were punished—supported by Tacitus, Ann. 2.85, tinct political usage, for the circle of closest advisers
though his figure may include Egyptians) in calculations around an eastern monarch or especially the Roman
of the Judean population of Rome around the turn of the princeps (emperor); see note at 2.4. In his autobiogra-
era (Leon 1960: 135; Donfried and Richardson 1998: phy Josephus imitates this rather grand usage in his own
19, 120, 249). The resulting estimates still vary widely, political career, pointedly ironizing the word “friend” at
however, from 20,000 to twice that number or more. Life 79—though he also claims to have had many real
book two 55

in the temple of Apollo489 on the Palatine490—this was his own personal construction,491
arrayed492 with astonishing extravagance493—the Judean bloc494 stood with their elders,
Archelaus opposite with his friends.495 82 Now the friends of this man’s relatives496 were
on neither of the two sides: not deigning497 to stand by and help498 Archelaus, on account

friends in Judea; e.g., Life 99, 131, 144, 205, 220, 234, Danaids and the library (see note to “personal construc-
236, 241, 274, 294, 324-26, 368, 378, 408, 419. tion” in this section), but above the pediment the chariot
489
Temples to Apollo (eternally youthful twin of of the sun-God Sol and other grand images. Abundant
Artemis, god of music, drama, poetry, knowledge, wis- decorative statues and exotic lamp-holders added to the
dom, prophecy, bow and arrow, increasingly identified effect: see Ovid, Trist. 3.27-35, 59; Pliny, Nat. 34.14;
with the sun) were found throughout the eastern empire, 36.13, 24-25, 32-36; Dio 49.15.5; 55.12.4-5.
notably at Athens, Corinth, Delphi, and Bassae in Greece, Josephus must have been acquainted with the Pala-
Didyma in Turkey (see the index to Pausanias), also at tine hill of the 60s to early 90s from his personal visits.
Pompeii and Rome. See further the following notes. It figures prominently in his account of Gaius’ death
490
The palatium is one of Rome’s 7 hills, the first to and Claudius’ succession (Ant. 19.75-76, 85-86, 223,
be settled according to tradition (cf. Ant. 19.223) and 266-68)—where even though his basic material must
the one usually chosen by Rome’s rulers, from Augus- come from a source, the narrative color is consistent
tus onward, for their residences. Overlooking the forum with his own. Even though Vespasian had given him a
along its SW side, it was the area that gave us, perhaps place to live on the Quirinal hill (see note to “imperium”
as a result of Domitian’s magnificent construction there at Life 423 in BJP 9), he may at least have visited Pop-
(B.W. Jones 1992: 95-96; Zanker 2002), the word “pal- pea Sabina in 63-64 (Life 13-16), answered charges of
ace” (> palatium). treason before the Flavians (maiestas: War 7.447-50;
491
Apollo was one of Augustus’ favored deities, and Life 428-29), and received Domitia’s benefactions (Life
indeed his alleged father (Suetonius, Aug. 94). Vergil’s 429) in the Palatine imperial residences. The Temple of
Aeneid (8.704) has Actian Apollo drawing his bow in Apollo may have been damaged in the fire of 64, though
support of Octavian against Antony and Cleopatra at the we do not know how badly (Champlin 2003: 124-25); in
battle of Actium; that text also mentions the Temple of any case, Josephus may have seen it before the fire on
(Phoebus) Apollo on the Palatine (8.720). Although he his first visit. It was a public space; even if Josephus did
began building a shrine to Apollo on the Palatine in 36 not enter it from religious considerations, its impressive
BCE, Augustus greatly enhanced it after his victory at aspect would have been obvious from both other points
Actium, adorning it with the Portico of the Danaids and on the Palatine and the Circus Maximus below.
494
a library of Greek and Latin texts (A. H. M. Jones 1970: This is another use of the versatile word πλῆθος,
149-50); the temple was dedicated in October of 28 BCE. elsewhere rendered “mob” or “rabble.” It is not clear
The Temple of Apollo sat immediately E of Augustus’ exactly which group is meant here: most likely would
modest private house (domus augusti): it is commonly be the 50 mentioned as “present” at 2.80, though the
thought to have faced the Circus Maximus, though Clar- distinction between the mass of people and their elders
idge (LTUR 5.225; 2003) argues that it opened inward might suggest the Roman Judeans; but there are far too
to the Palatine. The Augustan complex encompassed many of them (8,000) to have more than mere represen-
this temple and its grounds, which the princeps used tation in the temple.
495
to conduct business (as in this narrative) and in which See the note to “friends” at 2.81. Josephus is draw-
the Senate often met—in the library space—towards the ing a vivid picture of two sides presenting their cases,
end of Augustus’ reign. See LTUR 2.46-48 (“Domus: facing each other along the rectangular sides of the
Augustus”); Casali 1995-96; Royo 1999; Tomei 2000a, temple, with Augustus and his council presumably at
b; Miller 2000; Severy 2000; Haselberger 2002: 46, 68. the head of the room.
496
For Domitian’s development of the adjacent area, Zanker This cryptic phrase appears to refer to the ear-
2002; Dio 53.3; Suetonius, Aug. 29.1. lier Herodian opponents of Archelaus (2.20-22, 26-33):
492
The same verb (κοσµέω) is rendered “arranged” along with Antipas, his mother, and other relatives this
at 2.74. group included Ptolemy brother of Nicolaus, and the
493
By all accounts the Temple of Apollo was a stun- orators Ireneus and Antipater.
497
ning site, of dazzling marble with gold and ivory accents. See the note to the same verb (ὑποµένω), rendered
On the inside were three large statues—Pythian Apollo “stay put” at 2.74. It is characteristic of Josephus to use
flanked by his sister and mother (Propertius, Eleg. the same word repeatedly, with different senses, in a
2.31.1-16)—and on the outside not only the Portico of the short space.
56 book two

of hatred and envy,499 and yet being ashamed to be seen by Caesar with the accusers.500
83 Also present with these was Philip the brother of Archelaus501—having been sent be-
forehand by Varus out of kindness502 for the sake of two [things]:503 both to contend on
the side of Archelaus504 and, if Caesar should apportion the House of Herod505 among all
the descendants,506 to be thought worthy of507 a certain stake.508
Delegation (6.2) 84 When it was permitted509 for the accusers to speak,510 they first went through
accuses Herod,
Archelaus. Ant.
17.304
498
See the note to this word at 2.80—these are 2 of sense of “beforehand” here [προπέµπω]).
503
the 3 occurrences of the verb συµπαρίστηµι in Josephus. This is an elegant phrase, occurring only here
See the previous note. in Josephus (δυοῖν ἕνεκα) and rarely attested before
499
Hatred and envy (µῖσος καὶ φθόνος) were a him: Plato, Crat. 418e; fragments of Theopompus and
natural pair in ancient rhetoric and moral philosophy Philochorus; Theophrastus, Elig. mag. B.187; Isocrates,
(Ps-Aeschines, Ep. 2.3; Xenophon, Mem. 2.6.20; Plato, Areop. 70; Demosthenes, Ep. 2.4; Ps-Demosthenes,
Phaedr. 232d; Aristotle, Rhet. 1372b; Polybius 6.7.8, Neaer. 77; Didymus, Dem. 10.41; Philo, Spec. 4.127;
9.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.14, 48; Plutarch, Pel. 34.3; Contempl. 33.
504
Eum. 8.1; Dion 7.3; Brut. 29.8; Galb. 16.3; Mor. 96b, Ant. 17.303 claims more clearly that Varus’ kind-
176d; Lucian, Phal. 1.1; Cal. 10; Abdic. 5; Nav. 27, 39; ness was directed first of all toward Archelaus, whose
Diogenes Laertius 10.117), so serviceable that Plutarch friend he was.
505
devotes one of his moral essays to them (De invidia et In this story, two normally different senses of the
odio). Josephus uses the pair elsewhere at Ant. 2.10; common word οἶκος (“royal house, estate to be inher-
6.193; 20.21, 29. ited”) come together: the inheritance in question is not
500
Not simply because they were accusers, presum- mere land or wealth but the dynastic rule.
506
ably, for this group have themselves accused Arche- This expectation of two possible results—one
laus (2.26-33). Rather, Josephus anticipates an issue claimant to be chosen king or a division of Herod’s king-
of status and seemliness in connection with the new dom (κἂν διανέµῃ τὸν Ἡρώδου Καῖσαρ οἶκον πᾶσι
delegation’s claims. Quite unlike the earlier accusations τοῖς ἐγγόνοις)—intersects precisely with what the nar-
against Archelaus, their charges will be leveled mainly rator last reported about Caesar’s reflections before the
against his father, Herod, with Archelaus featuring only digression on the Varian war (2.38: “or apportion the
as the king’s true (tyrant) son (2.84-91). Yet Augustus rule among all the offspring” [εἴτε καὶ πάσῃ τῇ γενεᾷ
has always appeared in War as Herod’s close friend and διανεῖµαι τὴν ἀρχήν]). Did Varus in Syria, then, know
patron (1.387-400), and so these royal challengers of about Caesar’s private thoughts? The raising of these
Archelaus have no wish to identify themselves with such possibilities appears to be a dramatic literary device con-
thoroughgoing denunciations of the deceased king and structed to prepare the audience for the known outcome
familial patriach. (2.93-100); it seems impossible to know whether (and
501
This is the first appearance of Philip (26 BCE-33 unnecessary to suppose that) Varus had any such clear
CE) in the succession narrative of book 2. He was intro- motives.
507
duced in 1.562 as Herod’s son by Cleopatra of Jerusa- Or “be rewarded with.” Varus, in arranging all of
lem (therefore, a step-brother to Antipas and Archelaus, this, appears as patron of both Archelaus and Philip.
508
Herod’s sons by Malthace). Raised and educated in This appears to be Josephus’ knowing reference to
Rome, like Archelaus, he was an intended victim of 1.668, where the dying Herod in fact gave Philip Tra-
plots by Herod’s son Antipater (by Doris): 1.602, 646. chonitis and neighboring areas.
509
Although Philip had never been marked to succeed This is an unusually elegant construction (neu-
Herod as king, unlike Antipas (1.646) and Archelaus ter aorist passive participle of ἐπιτρέπω)—“It having
(1.664), Herod’s final will had given him Trachonitis been permitted [allowed, turned over] to the accusers to
and unspecified adjacent regions (1.668), which he will speak. . . .”
510
indeed receive from Augustus: see further 2.94-95, 167- It is curious that Josephus here, in contrast to all
168, 182; Kokkinos 1998: 236-40. other speeches in this section and most in his corpus
502
Greek κατ’ εὔνοιαν, paralleled by the verb εὐνοέω (except where the masses briefly voice their views), does
in Ant. 17.303, where it clearly describes Varus’ kind- not identify a single speaker. Read literally, his consis-
ness toward, or friendship for, Archelaus. This notice tent plurals and concluding reference to “the Judeans”
continues the benevolent portrait of Varus, also echoing (2.92) imply a chorus of 50 speaking in unison. One
2.80—Varus’ sending of the 50 delegates with his indul- might imagine, more realistically, that various speakers
gence, permission, or trust before the revolt (possibly the took up different parts, so that Josephus is collapsing
book two 57

Herod’s criminality,511 saying that it was not a king they had endured, but the most sav-
age tyrant512 of those who had ever yet exercised tyranny. At any rate, although a vast
number had been dispatched by him, those left behind had suffered such things that
they pronounced happy* those who had perished.513 85 For he had tortured not only the
bodies of his subjects514 but even the cities: though he had truly maimed515 his own [cit-
ies], he had arrayed those of the foreigners516 and donated the blood of Judea to alien

several speeches into one. But the oration has a logical cally by Josephus and others, as here: the dead are to be
and rhetorical coherence, unimaginable as spontaneous blessed. At War 4.385 Josephus uses the same verb to
group expression (e.g., 2.85). Perhaps he simply had no assert that, under Zealot terror in Jerusalem, the survi-
idea from his sources who had actually presented the vors declared the dead happy, and those being tortured
Judean brief (if indeed he did not fabricate this part of in prisons called blissful even those who lay dead and
the hearing) and, rather than drawing attention to this unburied. That is because the Zealots, like Herod in this
deficiency, opted for the lesser evil of a group speech. speech, throw aside all constraints of law and piety: in
The effect of this anonymity, in any case, is to deny the a world so dramatically turned upside down, only the
speakers any distinction of social status, which might be dead are fortunate. Eleazar at Masada (7.356) has the
crucial to an individual: they are a nameless mass. Indians pronouncing happy their fellows who take their
511
Although παρανοµία (going “beyond the law, own lives and advance to immortality. Whereas Solon
criminality”) is in this case related to Judean law—the had reportedly advised not to call anyone happy before
πάτριοι νόµοι (“ancestral laws”) mentioned in 2.86—in his death, but only lucky (Herodotus 1.32.70: πρὶν δ’
Josephus the categories themselves are generic: every ἂν τελευτήση, ἐπισχεῖν µηδὲ καλέειν κω ὄλβιον, ἀλλ’
nation has its constitution or ancestral laws, traditions, εὐτυχέα), Josephus rewrites this maxim with µακάριος-
and so law-breakers. The language here is such that Cae- language when he uses the fortune-reversals of the
sar and his council should understand it perfectly well Commagenian king Antiochus to illustrate (War 5.461):
without reference to Judean (or indeed “religious”) law “that we should call no one happy before his death” (ὡς
(cf. Mason 1991: 96-110): every nation’s legal system οὐδένα χρὴ λέγειν πρὸ θανάτου µακάριον). Thus Jose-
is a comprehensive code of what we might distinguish phus takes a principle of philosophical resignation in
as civil, criminal, and religious law. The charge against the face of fortune’s reversals (so that happiness should
Herod is partly that he failed to observe his own nation’s not be pronounced before the conclusion) to an ironic
laws while promoting other cities and their cultures—a extreme in desperate circumstances: death was in such
basic failure for a statesman, if true—and partly that he cases the sole hope for happiness—so bleak was life
behaved as a tyrant (see next note), acting “beyond the under tyranny. For yet a different paradoxical take on
law” in general. µακάριος-language see Luke 6:20-23.
512 514
“Tyrant” and “tyranny,” the themes of this speech Some examples of Herod’s torture in the preced-
(see also 2.88), are key terms of War : see 1.10 and the ing narrative: 1.485, 527, 529, 577, 584, 586, 590, 592,
note there, also to “self-government” at 2.22 and “bandit- 599; cf. the Judean tyrants at 5.425, but contrast Titus
chief ” at 2.55. Violence (also βία, δύναµις, φόνος) was at 6.345 (for “many” at least). Here, however, Herod’s
the essence of tyranny, the natural function of acting use of physical torture (mainly against slaves, guards,
outside law and custom (cf. παρανοµία above), as a law and foreigners), which was commonly used against
unto oneself. Diodorus (32.9a.1) claims that “Pseudo- such people also by constitutional authorities such as
Philip,” after defeating the Roman, “turned aside to Roman provincial governors (cf. Pliny, Ep. 10.96 and
savagery and tyrannical criminality” (ἐξετράπη πρὸς comments ad loc. in Sherwin-White 1966), is not the
ὠµότητα καὶ παρανοµίαν τυραννικήν). Phrases linking object of criticism: the main charge—with grand rhetori-
savagery and tyrants are common in Josephus (War 1.27; cal flourish—is that he tortured and maimed the very
4.567, 596; 6.433; 7.32; Ant. 17.342) as in other ancient cities that were his primary responsibility. This would be
writers (Polybius 9.23.22; 21.34.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. a serious charge, were it borne out in the narrative; but
4.73.2; 6.82.2; 10.6.4; 11.35.5; Diodorus 14.12.4; 19.1.8, see the note to “foreigners” in this section.
515
71.2; 26.15.1; 33.4.1, 14.3; 2 Macc 4:25; 7:27; 3 Macc The verb (λωβάοµαι) is potent, with connotations
6:24; 4 Macc 9:30; 18:20; Demetrius, Elec. 237; Plu- of mutilation and outrage together: it appears in War
tarch, Pel. 28.9; Sulla 13.1; Dion 15.1; Mor. 314f, 315d. elsewhere only at 1.270; 5.540.
516
403c; Polyaenus, Strat. 6.7.2; Appian, Mithr. 110; Dio- Herod’s gifts to foreign cities have been listed at
genes Laertius 2.106). 1.422-28 (mainly in Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece; he
513
This word-group (µακάριος, µακαρίζω: “happy, also endowed the Olympic Games). But the sympathetic
pronounce happy/ congratulate”) is often used paradoxi- narrator, in sharp contrast to these Judean speakers,
58 book two

peoples.517 86 In place of the old prosperity518 and the ancestral laws,519 he had filled the
nation rather with poverty520 and ultimate criminality.521 In short, the Judeans endured*
more calamities522 from Herod in a few years523 than their ancestors had suffered in all the
time since their withdrawal524 from Babylon.525 (They emigrated back when Xerxes was

has listed those liberal benefactions (τὸ µεγαλόψυχον rences are in bk. 1 and 18 in bk. 2. In light of the Judean
ἐπεδείξατο, 1.422) only briefly, after a detailed descrip- accusers’ claim here, it is noteworthy that in the prologue
tion of his building program in his own realm: Jerusa- Josephus as narrator—if only for momentary rhetorical
lem’s temple, palace, and fortress, the city of Sebaste needs there—has made the Judean lot under Roman rule
(Samaria), the temple at Panias, and projects at Caesarea, (presumably at least from 6 CE) singularly happy, before
Jericho, Herodium, and elsewhere (1.401-21). Against the unprecedented calamity of Jerusalem’s fall (1.11).
that background, this speech appears mischievous—and In the narrative, however, Judean leaders’ criticism of
rhetorically tortured, in contrast to the parallel in Ant. Herod’s government (as already of his father Antipater
17.304-14 (cf. Simonetti 2002: 744 n. 140)—though and brother Phasael) began well before his installation
many of these Judean projects were oriented towards the as king. Still, in contrast to Antiquities, the narrative
imperial or other foreign cults, and out of keeping with voice of War never unequivocally condemns Herod, even
the national traditions; cf. Bernett 2007: 28-170. where it allows that some of his actions contravened the
517
This highly rhetorical language, perhaps exagger- law (1.648-50). Most often, criticisms come from envi-
ated to absurdity here, is replaced in the parallel (Ant. ous, troublesome malcontents (1.208-12, 242-47, 265,
17.305-7) by a concrete argument: Herod presided over 315-16), and chiefly from ungrateful and impious rivals
the dissolution and disappearance of some settlements in within his own family (1.431-655). Although the narrative
his purview, while adorning foreign cities, by expropriat- does allow glimpses of widespread popular hatred (e.g.,
ing the property of the nobility whom he had executed. 1.660), this attitude is not endorsed or even explained
That claim fits Antiquities’ different narrative ethos, in by the narrator. War ’s Herod is mostly an inspiring and
which Herod is pointedly assimilated to the model of the pious champion of the Judeans (e.g., 1.354-57, 373-80).
monarchical tyrant: there he anticipates Gaius Galigula Paradoxically, at 1.372 the king rallies his people to face
(Ant. 19. 133-36, 174, 176), who also killed nobles down apparently major calamities (συµφοραί).
(εὐπατρίδαι) and confiscated their property (19.2-3, 523
Herod was effective king of Judea from 37-4 BCE,
131-32). Cf. Mason 2003a, 2008b.
518
though in War ’s presentation (1.181, 204) his dominance
Greek εὐδαιµονία, a keyword in Josephus’ lexi-
in the region began about a decade earlier, in the earlier
con, on which see the note to “happiness” at 1.11. In this
40s under his father Antipater.
narrative, the reign of the Hasmonean high priest John 524
Josephus makes an unusual word choice here,
Hyrcanus has been the shining example of εὐδαιµονία
since ἀναχώρησις normally means for him “retreat” or
(1.68-69), and Josephus will repeatedly lament its loss
(also 2.258; 7.143). In Antiquities he makes a great deal “withdrawal,” usually in military contexts (War 1.223,
of εὐδαιµονία as unique promise of the Judean constitu- 236; 2.300; 4.202, 635; 5.284, 290, 333; 6.23, 113, 185,
tion (Ant. 1.14, 20) and the special heritage of his nation 279; 7.198; Life 151, 171).
525
(4.114-22). The Judean exile in Babylon (586-536 and later
519
This is a formulaic phrase in Josephus, largely BCE)—the destruction of the first temple by the neo-
interchangeable with other phrases (e.g., τὰ πάτρια Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, the mass removal of
νόµιµα/ἔθη) that he uses to describe any nation’s system the Judean upper classes to Babylonia, and the gradual
of law and custom; these terms are not special to Judea. return of many to Judea under the Persian kings Cyrus,
See Mason 1991: 96-115. Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes, as well as the rebuild-
520
Josephus’ language is ironic: filling with empti- ing of the temple in Jerusalem—is a pivotal complex of
ness, or poverty. events in Josephus’ understanding of Judean history. He
521
Herod’s criminality, or arrogation to himself of will discuss it again in his major speech (War 5.389-93)
a status above the law (παρανοµία), is the essence of and, most tellingly, will structure the 20 books of the
tyrannical behavior: see notes to 2.84, the speech’s open- Antiquities around these events as fulcrum, in books 10
ing line. The parallel in Ant. 17.307-9 offers much more (end of first temple and captivity) and 11.1-91 (gradual
detail about Herod’s tyrannical behavior, though the return of some from exile). Alongside the many thematic
author seems to be assimilating him to Gaius Caligula: parallels he adduces or implies between his situation
see note to “alien peoples” at 2.85. and Jeremiah’s and Daniel’s, or between the divine plan
522
See the note to this key theme-word (συµφορά) at then and now (e.g., the Judeans’ enemies being used to
1.9, 11. It occurs 90 times in War: of these, 21 occur- purge the polluted temple), a crucial point concerns the
book two 59

king.)526 87 To such a degree of restraint527 and habitual bad fortune had they proceeded,
however, that they endured the bitter slavery528 and awaited529 a freely chosen succession.530
88 At any rate, Archelaus, the son of such a tyrant, they both readily addressed as king,531
after the death of his father, and joined with him in mourning the death of Herod;532 they
also prayed together with him about the succession.533
89 But, as if struggling mightily534 that he should not appear to be an illegitimate535 son

fulfillment of prophetic prediction: whether of the fall of it after his violence and bribery (2.281, but 306, 349);
of the first temple (10.33-34, 79, 140-41), the restora- Agrippa II hopes that future governors will do better in
tion under Cyrus (11.5-6), or later events (10.275-81; this respect (2.354). By extension, then, the word often
11.336-37)—all foreseen precisely long before they means “reasonable, decent, respectable” (cf. 2.275 and
occurred. note). On the absence of a political faction of “moder-
526
Xerxes I, son of Darius Hystaspes and Atossa, ruled ates” in Josephus’ narratives, see the note to “reasonable
the Persian empire from 485-465 BCE. He was notorious [folk]” at 2.275.
528
in the Greco-Roman world for his disastrous attempt to “Bitter slavery” (πικρὰ δουλεία) is a phrase
invade Greece in 480 BCE, which ended with his rout attested elsewhere (Euripides, Troi. 964; Frag. Hyps.
at Salamis. Josephus’ linking of the return from Babylon 61+82; Plato, Resp. 569c; Aristotle, Ath. pol. 2.3; Mir.
with Xerxes is interesting for several reasons. First, as ausc. 840b; Polybius 4.81.13; Agatharchides, Mar. eryth.
he will indicate in War 5.389-93 and Ant. 11.1-18, the 24; LXX Esth 4:17; Philo, Mos. 1.247; Epictetus, Diatr.
return is normally attached to the reign of Cyrus (559- 4.1.19), but it is used several times by Josephus (also
530 BCE), who first proclaimed the repatriation of the Ant. 11.263; 20.120). The point is ironic: whereas slav-
Judeans (cf. Ezra 1.1; Isa 44.28). Second, however, Ant. ery (δουλεία) should be associated with foreign oppres-
11.8 makes it clear that only some leaders (of the tribes sion, and it is what the Judeans had endured in Babylon
of Judah and Benjamin, Levites and priests) returned (Ant. 11.2), Herod has made them slaves in their own
under Cyrus. According to Ant. 11.120-38 a much larger land. On the highly charged language of freedom and
group (but still a small minority of the 12 tribes, 11.133) slavery throughout War , see the Introduction.
529
left decades later under Ezra, in the time of Xerxes. Thus I give two verbs (“endured,” “awaited”) for Jose-
Josephus already shows here a somewhat nuanced aware- phus’ 1, because his sentence artfully gives the same verb
ness of the story he will later tell in detail (contrast S. two objects in different cases (genitive and accusative),
Schwartz 1990: 24-35, who does not include this pas- which lend the verb different nuances (ὥστε ὑποµεῖναι
sage in his analysis of War ’s biblical knowledge). Third, τῆς πικρᾶς δουλείας καὶ διαδοχὴν αὐθαίρετον). They
Josephus also anticipates his correction of the Bible’s endured bitter slavery under Herod and were even will-
claim (Ezra 7.1) in Ant. 11.120-21 that it was Artaxerxes ing to countenance it again in a successor (Archelaus).
530
(i.e., Xerxes’ successor) who authorized Ezra’s mission. This adjective (αὐθαίρετος) occurs only 4 times
Once again, this indicates little change in his biblical in Josephus, all in War and all paradoxical as here: a
knowledge between War and Antiquities. freely chosen prison (3.144), a pitiable end (4.312), folly
527
Or “mildness, moderation”: the Judean people had and bad things leading to destruction (6.310). Here the
schooled themselves not to rebel even under tyranni- Judeans confess to an acquired mentality of slavery that
cal government and attendant bad fortune. The µέτριος conditions them even to choose for themselves a succes-
word-group, famous from Aristotle (e.g., Eth. nic. 1119a; sor to Herod, awful though he was.
531
Pol. 1313a, 1314e, 1315b), who advocated pursuing the So indeed the implication of 2.2 above.
532
middle way between extremes (e.g., aggression and So 2.1-2 above.
533
timidity), but also important for Polybius (e.g., 20.2-3; This 3rd item in the list of loyalty proofs offered
cf. Eckstein 1995: 28-83, 118-60) in articulating the way by the Judean delegation, which has no support in the
of the statesman, is basic to Josephus’ vocabulary. In preceding narrative, exposes the rhetorical slant of their
his narratives it has much to do with self-control, mild- appeal. This portrait of devoted loyalty is cast in doubt
ness, and the avoidance of partiality, partisanship, or by the story in 2.1-13, where “the entire rabble” (2.11)
zeal. Its chief political manifestations are accommoda- assaulted with stones the soldiers who were (reportedly)
tion (as here), in the case of the ruled, and the avoid- trying to keep peace by suppressing the rebel leaders. It
ance of brutality when applied to rulers. Thus Alexander seems from the narrative, as distinct from the speeches,
Ianneus’ reputation for restraint was undercut by his that much of the populace has in fact bridled (albeit pow-
brutal actions (1.85, 90-92); it was this crucial quality erlessly) under Herodian rule; cf. 1.660.
534
that Gaius Caligula lacked, which Claudius had by nature Greek ἀγωνιάω, used commonly of athletic com-
(2.208); Gessius Florus was admonished to acquire more petition but in War metaphorically (only here and at
60 book two

of Herod, he prefaced536 his reign with the massacre of 3,000 citizens:537 as many sacrifi-
cial victims538 as he had offered to God for his rule,539 with just as many corpses had he
Request for filled the temple at a festival.540 90 Those left intact after so many bad things,541 however,
annexation
to Syria. Ant.
had now reasonably turned in due course to confront these calamities,542 and by the law
17.314 of war543 they wanted to receive their blows to the face.544 They pleaded with the Romans
to take pity545 on the remains of Judea and not to toss away what was left of it to those
who were savagely mauling it,546 91 but after joining their region to Syria547 to administer

3.456; cf. Life 404), of deep emotional concern and sius, Ant. rom. 3.8.2; 6.36.2; Philo, Mos. 1.36; Oppian,
resulting effort. Hali. 2.316; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. 2.24.3; Appian, Bas.
535
Or “bastard, spurious, counterfeit” (νόθος): used 1.2; Bell. civ. 1.7.55, 58; 2.19.140; 3.2.13; 4.16.128;
of another son of Herod at 1.521, otherwise only at Heliodorus, Aeth. 7.24.2; 8.3.8), Josephus is its biggest
5.443. known user. He gives enough examples in War to indi-
536
I.e., Archelaus’ reign as king had not even begun cate a range of meaning: 3.363 (in his speech against
when he signaled what was to come (2.2-3). This color- suicide: by the law of war one should die only by a
ful verb (προοιµιάζοµαι) occurs only here in Josephus conqueror’s hand); 4.260 (Jesus the chief priest tries to
(cf. 2.454; Ant. 18.221 for the cognate noun as meta- refuse the Idumeans entry to Jerusalem by it; 4.388 (an
phor). It might carry either literary (“make X a pref- ancient prophecy that the temple will burn by the law
ace, premise”; Plato, Lach. 179a) or tragic, theatrical, of war); 5.332 (Titus’ right to sack the city by the law
possibly epic connotations (“make X a prelude [to the of war); 6.239 (in Titus’ consilium some argue that the
play, story]”; Aristotle, Poet. 1460a). On the theatrical temple should burn by right of war); 6.346, 353 (Titus
character of War , see Chapman 1998. remarks that he formerly showed clemency, against the
537
Like the orator Antipater, speaking for the Anti- law of war). See also Ant. 1.315; 6.69; 9.58; 12.274;
pas faction (2.30), these Judean delegates describe as a 14.304; 15.157. The phrase appears, then, to have two
simple fact the slaughter of 2.12-13, making it their main main senses: (a) a special set of norms that justify, in
evidence of Archelaus’ crimes. They willfully ignore the the extreme context of conflict, what would otherwise be
narrator’s claims about the ruler-designate’s concern and barbaric behavior (note Laban’s complaint about this cat-
effort to avoid bloodshed, as well as Nicolaus’ response egory-confusion in Ant. 1.315); (b) a set of minimal con-
(2.34) that the slaughter had been unavoidable. straints even in extreme circumstances (e.g., respecting
538
In his speech for the Antipas faction, Antipater heralds). Sometimes the phrase appears to mean noth-
had similarly linked the fate of those who had come to ing more than “the way things normally work in war,”
sacrifice at the festival with their animal victims. The with no moral evaluation. The rough Latin equivalent,
same image is used at 1.378: Herod’s Judean ambassa- ius belli, occupies a conspicuous position in the open-
dors are slaughtered, as if garlanded sacrificial victims, ing sentence of Livy’s history (Aeneas was one of two
by the Arabs. men spared at Troy in spite of the “law of war”, 1.1.1;
539
The earlier narrative has said nothing about Arche- cf. 26.31.2; Sallust, Bell. iug. 91.7; Quintilian, Inst. or.
laus’ provision of sacrifices for the sake of his rule, an 5.10.114), and may have influenced Josephus’ usage for
act that seems out of keeping with his determination to a Roman audience.
544
wait for Caesar’s endorsement of that rule (2.2-3). This Or “in person, in front.” This part of the speech
claim appears, then, as a highly prejudicial rhetorical receives no paraphrase in Ant. 17.313-14, and the sense
flourish. is not precisely clear. Possibly: if the Judeans are joined
540
The festival was Passover; the narrator has already to a Roman province (anticipating 2.91), the Romans
said that it was a time for vast numbers of sacrifices (cf. will be able to assess their qualities and if necessary
2.10 and notes). punish them directly, without receiving an impression of
541
Since Archelaus has been charged with only one them that has been distorted by oppressive client kings.
545
bad thing (2.89), and that a dubious one in light of the For this thematic tragic term (Aristotle, Poet.
narrative, the reference presumably includes Herod’s 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12), here as a
alleged evils (2.86). verb, see the note at 1.10 and the one to “compassion”
542
See the notes to this key word at 1.9 and 2.86. at 1.12.
543 546
Or, “convention [or custom] of war.” Although Or “tearing it to pieces,” in which case perhaps
the phrase πολέµου νόµος is well attested before and the rival heirs of Herod are intended—if the Judean
after Josephus (e.g., Aeschines, Fals. leg. 33; Polybius delegates know the possibility that the nation might be
2.58.10; 5.9.1, 11.3; 7.14.3; Diodorus 38/39.8.1; Diony- divided up among them (2.38, 93-94). But there is no
book two 61

it by means of their own governors.548 For this would demonstrate that those now being
maligned as factious549 and bellicose550 know how to tolerate mild governors.551
92 Whereas, then, the Judeans brought an end552 to their accusation with an appeal in
this vein, Nicolaus got up and, first, dismissed553 the charges against the kings,554 then

indication in the narrative of their knowledge that Caesar a Roman commander (στρατηγός), so also the paral-
is entertaining this option. Perhaps the reference is to the lel to the present passage (Ant. 17.314) expresses the
claim made at 2.85, that Herod and Archelaus maimed delegation’s hope that στρατηγοί sent to Syria will take
the state; cf. 2.92, “the charges against the kings” (pre- responsibility for Judea.
549
sumably, Herod and Archelaus). At 5.27 and again 5.526 Or “agents of sedition/civil strife” (στασιώδεις).
the narrator will use the same verb (σπαράττω) to accuse Before Josephus, this word appears once or twice only
rebel tyrants of behaving like dogs, tearing away at the in each of Demosthenes, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius,
body politic (cf. 2.589 of John). Although the MSS Posidonius, Chrysippus, Dionysius, and Philo, whereas
L1VRC have πράσσουσι (“those who were behaving he uses it 16 tmes. It is thus his characteristic vocabu-
savagely”), these examples show that the more vivid lary. All but 3 occurrences are in War , where civil strife
verb matches Josephus’ lexicon. For a Roman audience (στάσις) is a key term; see the notes to “civil strife”
acquainted with theater, the verb would probably carry and “insurgents” at 1.10, also to “insurgents” at Life 17
resonances of Euripides’ Bacchae, in which it figures in BJP 9. For the sake of variety, it seems, Josephus
prominently in the context of Bacchic frenzy (735, 739, uses many variants of the στάσι– root for “agents of
1104, 1127, 1135, 1220), and this would enhance the sedition” (see details in the notes to the passages men-
dramatic-tragic tone of War (on which, in general, Chap- tioned). These are conveniently indistinct terms, evoking
man 1998). the broad category of “trouble-makers” familiar to his
547
Although this request is declined by Caesar in the audience.
550
immediate sequel (2.93-94), after Archelaus’ removal in This assumed accusation has no precedent in the
6 CE Judea will be joined in some way to the province narrative itself, but anticipates Nicolaus of Damascus’
of Syria. Whereas War 2.117 (see notes there) appears to assessment of the national character in the next sentence
make Judea an independent province (ἐπαρχία) under its (2.92). At Josephus’ time of writing, after the war, the
own praesidial equestrian governor, the following story Roman audience may be presumed to know such a com-
makes clear that it is in some respects subject to the mon portrait of the Judeans as belligerent (see Introduc-
Syrian governor: e.g., 2.184-87. Ant. 17.355, by contrast, tion). This perception is paralleled—with due regard for
simply claims that after Archelaus’ removal his territory his ad hoc rhetoric—already in Cicero’s speech defend-
was annexed to Syria, and that the legate Quirinius in ing Flaccus (Flac. 69): he presents Pompey’s capture
Syria was charged with making a census of property of Jerusalem in 63 BCE as a just response to Judean
throughout the whole of his province. Coponius, accord- militancy.
551
ing to that narrative, was sent along with him, to rule See the note to “mildness” at 2.87, and Thucydides
over the Judeans with full authority (18.1)— not, evi- 1.38 for the classic statement of a more powerful party’s
dently, as an independent governor. See Ghiretti 1985 reacting wisely to mildness. In Josephus’ later narratives,
and Cotton 1999 for the persuasive historical argument as in his portrait of Quinctilius Varus above (2.16-17, 69,
that in 6 CE Judea was first incorporated into the prov- 76), the Syrian governors (of high senatorial, consular
ince of Syria as a prefecure. rank) appear as an entirely different class of men—cul-
548
The Greek is ambiguous: διοικεῖν ἐπ’ ἰδίοις tured, wise, and moderate—from the crass equestrians
ἡγεµόσιν, as I try to indicate in the translation (cf. LCL: sent to govern Judea: 2.195-203; cf. Ant. 18.88-90.
552
“governors from themselves”; M-B: “durch besondere Josephus uses this verb (καταλήγω) only in War :
Statthalter verwalten lassen”), though if the parallel at also at 3.331; 4.8; 5.136, 147.
553
Ant. 17.314 (ὑποτάσσεσθαι τοῖς ἐκεῖσε πεµποµένοις Although all MSS have ἀπεδύσατο (“stripped off,
στρατηγοῖς) may be invoked, ἐπ’ ἰδίοις would refer to undressed” [the charges]), I follow Destinon and Niese
the Roman governors of Syria. Roman control of a Judea here in reading ἀπελύσατο, a difference of one easily
annexed to Syria was also preferred by the partisans of confused letter (∆ for Λ): the latter verb makes better
Antipas at 2.22. Such an arrangement seems to match sense and matches Josephus’ known phrasing in War
Josephus’ ideal as well as that of many contemporary 4.338. Further, the Latin has (criminibus) dissolutis, rhe-
Greek aristocrats for their own cities; see the note to torical parlance for charges being refuted or addressed.
554
“self-government” at 2.22. Just as that passage calls for In view of the Judean delegation’s dual target, the
62 book two

accused* the nation as both hard to govern555 and by nature hardly obedient556 toward
the kings. He also kept maligning those relatives of Archelaus who had defected to the
accusers.557
Caesar divides (6.3) 93 So then, after hearing each of them Caesar dissolved the council558 and, after
kingdom among a few days, gave* half of the kingdom559 to Archelaus: he titled him ethnarch560 but also
Herod’s sons.
Ant. 17. 317 promised that he would make him king if he should show himself worthy.561 94 The re-
maining half he divided into two tetrarchies and gave* to the other two sons of Herod, the
one to Philip562 and the other to Antipas563 (the one contending against Archelaus for the
kingship).564 95 Under the latter565 were both Perea566 and Galilee,567 with revenue of two
hundred talents,568 while Batanea, Trachonitis,569 Auranitis,570 and certain parts of the estate

plural seems to be shorthand for King Herod and his son the role of ethnarch there (Ant. 14.117): “he both man-
Archelaus (see the note to “mauling it” at 2.90), though ages the nation (ἔθνος) and administers justice and takes
the latter’s title has yet to be decided. charge of contracts and ordinances, as if he were head
555
This adjective (δύσαρκτος) is exceedingly rare, of a self-governing political entity (ὡς ἂν πολιτείας
occurring only 9 times in the TLG corpus. All the more ἄρχων αὐτοτελοῦς).” Evidently, Augustus makes use
curious, then, that Josephus has two of those occur- of an existing local (Greek) title; this is not the Greek
rences, and in the other (Ant. 4.11) it is paired as here equivalent of a Latin term. On the title see Schürer-
(next note) with δυσπειθής, a combination that appears Vermes 1. 333-34 n. 12.
in no other author. The only author known to have used The settlement as described in Josephus’ narrative
the word before Josephus is Aeschylus (Cho. 1024; Frag. reveals no little political skill on Augustus’ part. It honors
[Mette] Tetr. 44A fr. 530). See also Plutarch, Luc. 2.5; the will of his deceased and loyal client Herod, inasmuch
Mor. [Princ. iner.] 779d; Appian, Bell. civ. 2.21.149. as it gives Archelaus pride of place, with the potential
556
Greek δυσπειθής. Josephus’ Nicolaus, with typi- to become king. At the same time it takes account of
cally pointed concision (cf. 2.34-36 and notes), juxta- the energetic criticism of Archelaus’ fitness to be king.
poses two summary adjectives with δυσ-prefixes (see Finally, it recognizes the claims of the 2 brothers, more
previous note). or less in keeping with the terms of Herod’s final will
557
This was also a point in Nicolaus’ rebuttal of (1.664, 668). For the Archelaus of the narrative, however,
Antipas’ partisans at 2.35: those accusing Archelaus had it must have come as a blow, and a signal of formidable
formerly been his advisers. According to 2.20-21, Arche- Judean opposition to him; Josephus’ audience knows that
laus’ rival Antipas had won over a number of his (so he was fully expecting to become king of his father’s
also Archelaus’) relatives, including their aunt (Herod’s domain (2.2-3). Cf. Smallwood 1981: 108-9.
561
sister) Salome, mother Malthace, and many of those who The paraphrase at Ant. 17.317 is characteristically
had sailed with Archelaus. more overtly moralistic: “if he should apply virtue to it
558
See the notes to “council” and relevant verbs at [the kingdom/kingship].”
562
2.25, 38. See the note at 2.83.
559 563
Or “kingship, sovereignty” (ἡ βασιλεία). See the note at 2.20.
560 564
This title means something like “sheikh” or “tribal/ A neat inclusio, since this is precisely how Anti-
national leader”: “ruler of an ethnos.” Of some 33 known pas was introduced in 2.20 (with the verb ἀµφισβητέω).
occurrences of this word (ἐθνάρχης) before the second The point in mentioning this, as Ant. 17.318 emphasizes,
century CE, 22 are in Josephus and 3 in 1 Maccabees: seems to be that whereas Archelaus and Antipas had
according to 1 Macc 14:47; 15:1, 2, the Hasmonean high contended for the kingship (“the whole rule” according
priest Simon was recognized as ethnarch by the Seleucid to the parallel), they both ended up with far less.
565
king (cf. Ant. 13.214; 14.148, 151, 191, 194, 196, 200, The sentence has a chiastic structure: Philip, Anti-
210, 212, 226, 306, 314, 317—all but the first concern- pas // Antipas, Philip.
566
ing Hyrcanus II). Although our evidence of the word’s Across the Jordan: see the notes at 2.43, 57.
567
use is chiefly in Judean circles, it is also known from See the note to “Galilee and Idumea” at 2.43.
568
Syria and the Arab world. For the significant difference See the note to “talents” at 2.50.
569
between this status and that of king (βασιλεύς), empha- Trachonitis has appeared at 2.58; see notes there.
570
sized by Josephus here and at Ant. 17.317, see Strabo These adjacent regions NE of Lake Gennesaret
17.1.13; 2 Cor 11:32; Lucian, Macr. 17. (Kinneret, Sea of Galilee), which should include Gaul-
In his discussion of the Alexandrian Judean commu- anitis (Ant. 18.106), were introduced as Augustus’ addi-
nity, Josephus quotes a lost passage of Strabo defining tions to Herod’s reign at 1.398-400. According to 1.668,
book two 63

of Zenon571 around Panias,572 having revenue of a hundred talents,573 had been assigned
under Philip.574 96 Archelaus’ ethnarchy575 included Idumea,576 all Judea, and Samaria,577
which was relieved of a quarter of its taxes out of respect for its not having revolted with
the others.578 97 As subject cities he received Strato’s Tower,579 Sebaste,580 Ioppa,581 and

573
Herod’s final revision of his will gave these areas to See the note to “talents” at 2.50.
574
Philip (“Trachonitis and the adjacent areas”), a decision The perfect passive may reflect 1.668, in which
confirmed by Augustus here. Herod’s will is said to have assigned these areas to
571
Named Zenodorus in the parallel (Ant. 17.319; cf. Philip.
575
15.344). Long dead by now, he had according to Josephus See the note to “ethnarch” in 2.93.
576
(War 1.398-400) once controlled on lease the so-called See the note at 2.43.
577
domain of Lysanias (W and N of Damascus on the slopes Pliny (Nat. 5.70) groups these 3 regions, with
of the Antilebanon range), where he settled Trachonite Judea “above” (i.e., higher than) the others.
578
bandits from further S, who harassed the residents of As Josephus has already indicated, Samaria did
Damascus. The Syrian legate Varro drove Zenodorus out not participate in the revolt suppressed by Varus, a fact
of those threatening areas, which Augustus then trans- that the legate acknowledged by declining to attack the
ferred to Herod, making him “procurator of all Syria” city on his southward march (see 2.69 and notes). Here,
(23 BCE; War 1.399, but Ant. 15.360—adviser to Syr- however, the entire region seems intended, whereas in
ian procurators; discussion in Bernett 2007: 128-30). At 2.69 it is the city of Samaria (Sebaste).
579
Zenodorus’ death (20 BCE), the region from Trachonitis The site of Herod’s magnificent city, Caesarea; see
to Galilee also passed to Herod. the note at 2.16. Thus far in War, a “Strato’s Tower”
572
The copyists of Josephus’ MSS appear to have has been discussed in two notable contexts: Aristobu-
been baffled by whatever he wrote here, and in their lus’ murder of his brother Antigonus (and the Essene’s
attempt to correct it confused matters further: they remarkably fulfilled prediction, in spite of confusion
have ἰννάνω (PAM, followed by Niese), ΐναν (L) ἴναν about the location) and Herod’s foundation of Caesarea
(R), and ἰαµνειαν (VC); Latin innam uicum. Iamnia is on the coastal site (War 1.77-80, 408-15). It may seem
far from the region in question, and in any case it is suprising that Josephus should use the older name, since
accounted for in 2.98. Panias is the plausible conjecture he elsewhere emphasizes that this was the former name,
of H. Graetz and E. Schürer, followed by Reinach and before Herod’s massive rebuilding and refoundation
Thackeray: it is in the appropriate area; it corresponds of Caesarea (Ant. 15.331-41; 19.343; 20.173). Yet he
to the provisions of Herod’s final will according to Ant. makes the same choice at the parallel (Ant. 17.320). The
17.189, which included Πανειάς in Philip’s territory; proposal that he takes this over from his source, per-
and a vertical stroke of Π could easily be misread as haps an administrative document specifying Archelaus’
Ι. But not all are convinced by the emendation. Schalit revenues (e.g., Simonetti 745 n. 146), runs up against
(Conc. s.v.) and Pelletier accept ἴναν, as an accusative of the following problems: (a) Josephus has a tendency to
ἴνα, as representing a place “im Libanongebiet, Dekapo- recall the older name, and so must think that this has
lis”; M-B keep ἰννάνω, positing an otherwise unknown some benefit for his audience; (b) he similarly uses the
site, Innano. displaced “Samaria” at 2.69, and Dicaearcheia almost
As Josephus explains in War 1.404 and 2.168, Panias always instead of the current Puteoli (2.104; Ant. 18.160,
(mod. Banyas) is near the source of the Jordan River. 248-49; 19.5; Life 16); (c) when his Roman contempo-
Herod had built a white marble sanctuary in honor of rary Pliny the Elder describes the coastal cities, he too
Augustus there, which revived the use of a site that had gives “Strato’s Tower” first (inde Apollonia, Stratonis
hosted the nature cult of Pan—frequented by residents of turris, eadem Caesarea, ab Herode rege condita, nunc
the Huleh valley before the expansion of the destabiliz- colonia Prima Flavia . . . ; Nat. 5.69). In Josephus’ usage
ing Itureans into the region by 75 BCE. The exact site here we may be witnessing the same sort of perspective
of Herod’s Augustus-sanctuary has recently been much as Pliny’s: both knew that the city had recently been
debated; see Bernett 2007: 126-46; for the site, Pliny, renamed yet again (for Josephus’ knowledge of post-70
Nat. 5.71, 74. Bernett (2007: 132) argues that Herod names, see [Flavia] Neapolis at 4.449), as Colonia Prima
wished also to bring stability to the region, which was Flavia Augusta, and so preferred to invoke the original
still subject to Iturean raiders in the N Golan, by estab- name, which seems to have endured anyway in some
lishing a new political center at Panias—anchored in the formulations of “Caesarea,” to give historical perspec-
imperial cult, later accompanied by the city of Caesarea tive. Even in his recent detailed description of Herod’s
founded by Herod’s son Philip soon after Herod’s death reconstruction (1.408-15) Josephus mainly presents it as
(here and 2.168). activity conducted at “Strato’s Tower” (1.408), supplying
64 book two

Hierosolyma.582 The Greek cities Gaza,583 Gadara, and Hippos584 [Caesar] cut off from
the kingdom585 and attached to Syria. Revenue from the region given to Archelaus was
400586 talents.587
Other relatives’ 98 And Salome,588 in addition to what the king bequeathed in his will,589 was declared*
inheritances. mistress590 of both Jamnia and Azotus as well as Phasaelis,591 and Caesar granted* her
Ant. 17.321
also the royal [holdings] in Ascalon.592 Now, sixty talents593 in revenue were being col-
lected from all these, and he set her estate under the toparchy594 of Archelaus.595 99 Each

588
“Caesarea” only at the end (1.414). Similarly, the story See the notes at 1.181; 2.15.
589
of the Essene’s prediction (1.77-80) assumes the general The Greek is plural: see the note to “wills” at 2.38.
familiarity of the older name. Curiously, according to Ant. 17.321, Jamnia, Azotus, and
580
Formerly Samaria, re-founded in 28 BCE by Phasaelis were bequeathed to Salome by Herod in his
Herod with the honorary name that was the feminine will, along with half a million pieces of coined silver
Greek counterpart to Augustus; see the note to “Sama- (not mentioned here). That Caesar added the Ascalon
ria” at 2.69. Here he uses the Herodian-Roman name we palace to Salome’s inheritance (so both War and Antiq-
would expect (1.403; cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.69), rather than the uities) might make better sense if everything else had
former “Samaria.” been specified in Herod’s will, and such reasoning might
581
Joppa has been much discussed through the Has- account for the clarification in Antiquities. See follow-
monean and Herodian narratives: 1.50, 99, 156, 292-93, ing notes.
590
409. This major Mediterranean port was added to Herod’s For this collocation (ἀποδείκνυµι δεσπότης/-ις),
kingdom by Augustus after his defeat of Antony and see Herodotus 3.134; 8.68; and Josephus, Ant. 2.263.
591
Cleopatra (1.396). All 3 sites were on the margins of Archelaus’
582
It is striking that Josephus should single out Jeru- Judean territory. Ancient Iamnia/Jamnia (bibl. Yavneh/
salem, the obvious capital of Judea, as among the cities Jabneh) was about 10 miles (16 km) N of Azotus (bibl.
made subject to Archelaus—as though it were an auton- Ashdod) on the main coastal highway, the latter due W
omous city like the others mentioned. This reinforces of Jerusalem (cf. 1.50, 156, 166). Each city, slightly
the city-based mentality of ancient writers and Roman inland, also had a port. Azotus would have fallen in the
administrators. “toparchy” (regional governmental district surviving
583
The ancient coastal city of Gaza (Ant. 1.136; 5.81) from the period of Ptolemaic adminisration in the 3 rd
had been made free by Pompey (War 1.156), but later cent. BCE [A. H. M. Jones 1937: 274]; cf. War 3.54-5;
added to Herod’s kingdom by Augustus (1.396). Pliny, Nat. 5.70) of Jamnia; see Kokkinos 1998: 189 and
584
Gadara (on the River Yarmuk in modern Jordan) 191 with notes. Phasaelis was built by Herod in honor
and Hippos (on a hill overlooking Lake Gennesaret from of his brother Phasael (1.418), in the Jordan River valley
the E), annexed to Herod’s territory by Augustus (1.396), about 13 miles (22 km) N of Jericho, at a fork in the
were both prominent members of the so-called Decapo- highway. See further 2.167 and Appendix A to BJP 1a.
592
lis: the 10 free Greek cities—different authorities give Continuing southwards on the coastal highway,
slightly different lists—straddling the Jordan River and about 8.5 miles (14.5 km) S of Salome’s possession Iam-
Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret). See Pliny, Nat. 5.74 and the nia, then W to the coast, lay Ascalon (bibl. Ashkelon). A
note to “Ten Cities” at Life 341 in BJP 9. Greek city outside Herod’s kingdom, it had nonetheless
585
That is, from Herod’s former kingdom (possi- benefited from his largesse, including spectacular foun-
bly “kingship”); there is neither kingdom nor kingship tains and colonnades (War 1.422). Although the Greek
now. here (plural τὰβασίλεια) might indicate royal properties
586
Although all the MSS for the parallel passage (Ant. other than a palace, the parallel at Ant. 17.321 is explicit
17.320) give 600 talents, those here all indicate 400. about a royal residence: τὴν ἐν Ἀσκάλωνι βασίλειον
Numbers, written with Greek letter abbreviations, were οἴκησιν.
593
highly susceptible to alteration in copying; but Josephus See the note to “talents” at 2.50.
594
is also quite capable of making such changes from one This is a puzzling word choice, since the topar-
work to another. Whether this is because of better infor- chy of Iamnia, which seems to have included coastal
mation in the later work, greater seeming plausibility Azotus, was that local district: elsewhere in Josephus
on reflection, or more arbitrary reasons, we are usually a toparchy is an administrative region (cf. τόπος) sur-
unable to determine. rounding a mid-sized town such as Acrabetta, Gophna,
587
See the note to “talents” at 2.50. Thamna, or Bethel (War 2.167, 235, 252, 509, 652, 567;
book two 65

of Herod’s other offspring596 acquired what had been bequeathed in the wills, but besides
that, to his two unmarried daughters597 Caesar granted* 500,000598 [pieces] of silver599 and
had them establish homes with Pheroras’ sons.600 100 And after the estate, he distributed to
them the gift left to himself by Herod, which was 1,000 talents,601 while he had selected for
himself certain inexpensive items from the heirlooms for the honor of the deceased.602
(7.1) 101 At this time a certain young man,603 a Judean by ancestry604 but raised in False Alexan-
Sidon605 by a freedman among the Romans,606 on the strength of a resemblance in ap- der’s plot. Ant.
17.324

3.48; 4.444, 503, 511, 550; Ant. 8.284; 13.125; 18.31). a slave woman, and so the girl was given to a son of
At War 3.54-55 he says that Judea is divided into 11 Phasael. According to 16.226-28, however, the same girl
“cleruchies” (tribal allotments or inheritances) and then (apparently) was later betrothed to one of Pheroras’ sons.
lists the 10 towns (not counting Jerusalem) correspond- The sons of Pheroras remain unnamed throughout the
ing to Roman administrative “toparchies.” So also Pliny narrative, their marital relationships hardly clarified. See
(Nat. 5.70), who gives a slightly different list, though Kokkinos 1998: 172-76.
601
both include Iamnia. The Latin reading ethnarchia is See War 1.646 for the original bequest to Augus-
easier to understand in the context here, since Archelaus tus. Ant. 17.323 has 1,500 talents.
602
has been named ethnarch (but this means that “toparchy” It would be improper for Caesar to take nothing
has the text-critical advantage of being the preferable at all from Herod’s respectful bequest. This description
“more difficult reading”): Salome’s holdings would be of Herod (ὁ κατοιχόµενος) has a measure of reverence,
under his general purview. Cf. Pelletier 204 n. 6; Schalit appropriate to Caesar’s sentiment for a departed friend.
1969: 201-215. Ant. 17.323 clarifies the moral lesson: Caesar kept these
595
I.e., Salome’s possessions were neither simply hers things not because of their value but in order to remem-
nor subject to a Roman governor, but still considered a ber the king. The verb κατοίχοµαι is not common in
subset of the Herodian client territory. Josephus (War 6.3; Ant. 4.256; 19.357, 363, 364), though
596
I.e., the children other than Archelaus, Antipas, these 6 occurrences, matching 6 in Plutarch, stand over
Philip, and those already executed (Antipater, Alexander, against only 24 attestations in all Greek literature before
Aristobulus). Josephus has given an overview of Herod’s Josephus. It seems to be a newly fashionable word.
603
10 wives (9 plus Mariamme) and children at 1.562-63; On young males in Josephus’ narratives, see the
see also Kokkinos 1998: 206-45. Introduction and the note to “youths” at 2.225: as in
597
These appear to be Herod’s daughters by Phaedra Thucydides and especially Polybius, they frequently
and Elpis, respectively Roxane and Salome (1.563), since cause problems; see further 2.106. Chapman (1998:
they are the only ones not yet married according to the 88-90) observes that Josephus often uses τις, as here,
narrative. The word rendered “unmarried” is πάρθενος, “to introduce provocative or exemplary material” by
often translated “virgin.” In antiquity generally, the cor- means of an otherwise minor character. In this case, the
relation between being not yet married and being a virgin false Alexander adds yet another strand to the struggles
was assumed to be close, though the word often refers to for monarchical succession, which have occupied bk.
young women with no special emphasis on their virgin- 2 thus far. There is an ironic dimension to this story,
ity, and it can refer to young women who are not virgins inasmuch as the main contest in Rome has been about
(Homer, Il. 2.514; Pindar, Pyth. 3.34; Sophocles, Trach. Caesar’s recognizing Herod’s legitimate heir(s), as also in
1219; Aristophanes, Nub. 530). this comic-relief episode: all monarchical succession—
598
To both together, apparently: Ant. 17.322 has each including even that of Augustus, as Josephus’ audience
daughter receiving 250,000 pieces. This is the equivalent well knew—must reckon with problem of identifying
of 2 million HS, or twice the traditional property require- (or creating) legitimate heirs. See the Introduction and
ment of a Roman senator—so, a vast sum. Mason 2008b.
599 604
Or drachmae, the standard silver denomination in For this phrase, see Cohen 1994.
605
the Greek world. An ancient coastal city (known from the Paleo-
600
Pheroras, Herod’s youngest brother (1.181, lithic era), 27 miles (45 km) S of Beirut (mod. Leba-
308), had died in a Perean exile (5 BCE) imposed by non), Sidon had been the renowned Phoenician capital,
Herod because of Pheroras’ wife’s rebellious activities and deeply Hellenized from the 5th-4th centuries BCE.
(1.578-81). According to Ant. 16.194-200, when Herod Although it was given autonomy by the Seleucids (111
had offered his daughter Salampsio in marriage to Phero- BCE), and Pompey recognized that status in 63 BCE, this
ras, the latter had declined because of his passion for was lost in 20 BCE as a consequence of the city’s hav-
66 book two

pearance was misrepresenting himself as Alexander607—the one who had been disposed
of by Herod.608 He came to Rome in the hope that [his fraud] would escape detection.609
102 Now there was a certain collaborator,610 his compatriot,611 who knew everything that
happened throughout the kingdom: having been instructed by this man, he was alleging612
that those who had been sent for his and also Aristobulus’ elimination had, out of compas-
sion,613 spirited them away by a substitution of similar bodies.614 103 At any rate, after
deceiving the Judeans on Crete615 with these [lies] and being splendidly furnished with

ing supported Marc Antony’s losing cause. Yet Augustus the conclusion that Josephus is evoking a parallel—
restored the city and extended its territory E all the way thereby commenting further on the pitfalls of monar-
to Mt. Hermon. Sidon was an economic leader in the chical succession (see Introduction and Mason 2008b).
region, famous for its purple dye and its glass blowing. Millar (1964: 214-18) discusses Josephus’ false Alexan-
It was one of the foreign cities Herod had provided with der in the context of the false Neros described by Cas-
a theater (1.422). In the early 3rd century CE it would sius Dio.
receive the status of a Roman colonia, under Elagabalus Simonetti (745 n. 147), commenting on the parallel
(a native of Emesa in Syria). (Ant. 17.324-38), proposes that this episode marks the
606
The phrasing of MS P is awkward (“by the freed- end of Josephus’ use of Nicolaus as source. In truth, we
man of the Romans,” παρὰ τῷ τῶν Ῥωµαίων ἀπελευ- have no way of knowing whether this story came from
θέρῳ), though perhaps easiest to explain as original on Nicolaus. At any rate, Josephus has thoroughly massaged
the principle of preferring the “more difficult reading.” it for his purposes.
608
MSS LVRC (and M for the most part) have “by a cer- That is, Herod’s son by Mariamme I, executed
tain one of the Roman freedmen” (παρὰ τίνι ῥωµαικῶν with Aristobulus in 8/7 BCE at Sebaste/Samaria for his
ἐπελευθέρων), which makes easier sense, but is suspect alleged part in a conspiracy against the king (1.451-52,
because it conforms the text to Ant. 17.324, though the 550-51).
609
later work normally varies its phrasing vis-à-vis War. Ant. 17.325 clarifies: this resemblance emboldened
Latin has the ambiguous apud aliquem libertinum roma- him to make a play for power (i.e., assuming Herod’s
num. legacy).
607 610
The following story remarkably anticipates, by a Greek συνεργός. Whereas Ant. 17.325, 334, 336,
century and half, Cassius Dio’s account of a false Alex- 337 make it clear that the collaborator is an older man,
ander [the Great]: active in 221 CE, and resembling the and the impostor’s teacher—all the more guilty in that
great general of a half-millennium earlier, he gathered he has corrupted a youth—that point is minimized here
much support, including accommodation and provisions, with the language of collaboration, though it might per-
as he moved through Moesia and Thrace (Dio 79.18.1-3). haps be assumed from the conclusion at 2.110 (that only
More directly relevant for Josephus’ audience: we know the impostor was fit for labor, whereas the chief culprit
of 3 different characters who pretended to be Nero in was executed).
611
the years following that emperor’s suicide (June 68 CE), That is, another Judean.
612
and Tacitus claims that there were many (Hist. 2.8). The Ant. 17.327 suggests that the imposotor was him-
first appeared in 69 CE and impressed people with his self carried away by the fraud.
613
singing and lyre-playing, and with his facial resemblance See the note to this key term at 1.12.
614
to Nero; he established his strongest following on the According to Ant. 17.326, one of the men sent
Greek island of Cynthos, only about 60 miles (100 km) to kill the sons had gone so far as to kill others for the
N of Melos—the stronghold of Josephus’ impostor here purpose of subsituting bodies.
615
(see below): cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2.8; Dio 64.9.3. The sec- This large and famous Mediterranean island S of
ond, active in Titus’ reign (79-81 CE), was named Ter- the Aegean—the base of pre-historic “Minoan” civiliza-
entius Maximus: Dio 66.19.3. The third, who appeared tion, home to dozens of cities, and a Roman “senatorial”
in the middle of Domitian’s reign (ca. 88-89 CE) was province together with Cyrenaica after Octavian’s victory
supported by the Parthians as a provocateur (Tacitus, at Actium, had hosted a substantial Judean community
Hist. 2.8; Suetonius, Nero 57.3). See Pappano 1937; since at least the 1st century BCE. Cf. Philo, Legat.
Bastomsky 1969; Gallivan 1973; Chilver 1979: 42; esp. 281-82 (Crete is one of the places reportedly “full of
Champlin 2003: 10-16. Judeans”); Schürer-Vermes 3.4-5, 68, 71-72 (for later
Since at least the first of these impostors must have inscriptions from there). Josephus’ last known wife was
been known to War ’s Roman audience, it is hard to avoid from a Cretan-Judean family of some distinction (so Life
book two 67

supplies,616 he sailed across to Melos.617 There, after he had collected much more because
of the perfectness of his credibility,618 he even induced619 his foreign associates620 to sail
off with him to Rome. 104 When he had landed at Dicaearcheia,621 he took* abundant
gifts from the Judeans there622 and, exactly as if a king, was sent onward by his “father’s”
friends.623 To such a degree of trust had the likeness of appearance worked its effect, that
those who had seen624 Alexander, and plainly knew* him,625 swore626 that this man was

427), though the length of their residence on the island Dicaearcheia, and Rome) for ridicule because of their
is uncertain. great investment in this shady character.
616 621
Although Josephus uses the cognate noun several An old Greek colony on the Bay of Naples, later
times, this is the only occurrence of the verb ἐφοδιάζω colonized by the Romans and renamed Puteoli in the
in his corpus. early 2nd century BCE: mod. Pozzuoli. Especially given
617
Established shipping routes in the Greek and Josephus’ Roman context (see Introduction), it is unclear
Roman worlds followed coastlines, avoiding the open sea why he favors the older Greek name, though he does so
as far as possible (cf. Paul’s perilous trip from Judea to consistently (Ant. 17.328; 18.160, 248-49; 19.5; Life 16;
Rome in Acts 27:2-28:1). Josephus’ own route to Rome Puteoli only at Ant. 18.161 and Life 16—both in con-
will place him “in the middle of the Adriatic” (Life 15), junction with the Greek name). Although it is conceiv-
which means that his ship also avoided the open water of able that he is influenced by a source (cf. D. R. Schwartz
the Mediterranean. Traveling from the E it was custom- 1990: XV, 6-7, 50, 178), he tends to retain old names
ary to head N from Crete to the Greek islands, of which for certain sites, even after describing the name change:
Melos marked the SW corner. cf. 2.69 (Samaria), 97 (Strato’s Tower). Further, this
The Melians were famous from, among other things, might well be part of his Atticizing program in War , or
Thucydides’ Melian dialogue (5.85-113), in which they at least his wish to retain a non-Roman, Greek-Eastern
naively espouse principles of honor and self-respect perspective, even while addressing Romans. Precisely in
before a delegation from Athens, failing to grasp the describing Dicaearcheia, Strabo (5.4.6-7) does something
immediate threat posed by the powerful Athenians, who similar: immediately after describing how the Romans
proceed to destroy them. renamed the city Puteoli (Ῥωµαῖοι καὶ µετωνόµασαν
618
Here is another fashionable term in War . The noun Ποτιόλους) at the time of Hannibal, he continues using
ἀξιοπιστία is rarely attested before Josephus—only in the Greek name (5.4.7). (On the complexity of Strabo’s
Diodorus (1.23.7; 37.10.1) and Strabo (Geog. 2.1.8). Yet cultural identity, see Clarke 1999: 193, 216-44.) In the
he has it 4 times, 3 in War (1.627; 2.103, 255; cf. Ant. story time here, under Augustus, Puteoli was the port
13.403), in each case with the strong sense of deceptive where ships approaching Rome normally offloaded cargo
posturing. In the 2nd century CE the word becomes more for transfer to riverboats that would carry it up the Tiber;
popular: 5 times in Galen and pseudo-Galen, 19 in Aris- Ostia, which would become Rome’s main port, had not
tides, also in Numenius, Ptolemy, Sextus Empiricus, and yet been developed. See the note at Life 16 in BJP 9.
622
often in the church fathers. (The adjective ἀξιόπιστος The Judean community of Dicaearcheia will
has earlier and broader attestation, but it generally lacks reportedly prove important to Josephus personally, when
the connotation of deception to which the abstract noun he seeks to find an avenue of access to the Roman court
lends itself.) (Life 16). The only (probably) Judean inscription from
619
See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. Puteoli (or if not, from nearby Marano) in the 1st century
620
Or “foreign sponsors, friends,” a word (ἰδιόξενος) CE (or slightly later) is JIWE 23, in Latin, recording a
highlighting the paradox that strangers should be devoted gerousiarch named Ti. Claudius Philippus.
623
to one’s welfare. In Josephus the word occurs only here Farmer (1957-58: 148) observes that this epi-
and in the parallel episode (Ant. 17.328, 331). The nar- sode (if treated as a historical datum) incidently reveals
rative does not imply that the pretender’s foreign friends the continuing prestige of Hasmonean ancestry among
were Judeans (contrast the situation in Crete). To the Judeans even in the Diaspora.
624
contrary, the parallel claims that Melians’ stake was Though translated as a pluperfect the Greek verb
purely financial: thinking that this man was royalty, is perfect, and matched by the coming vivid present
they expected that he would reward them once he had participle: “those who have seen Alexander, and plainly
received his rightful throne (Ant. 17.327)—much, per- knowing. . . .”
625
haps, as King Herod had lavished funds on Greek cities. Although Josephus’ verb ἐπίσταµαι is normally
In this passage too, at 2.105, 110 Josephus will single employed for knowing things rather than people, in 2.106
out the Melians (in contrast to the Judeans of Crete, it will take “Alexander” as direct object, in a phrase
68 book two

he.627 105 In fact, the entire Judean [population] in Rome poured out for the spectacle628
of him, and there was a countless horde629 in the narrow alleys630 through which he was
being carried. For to such a degree of insanity631 did the Melians advance that632 they car-
ried him in a sedan-chair and furnished a royal court633 at their private expense.
Exposed by (7.2) 106 Now Caesar, knowing precisely634 the features635 of Alexander (for the latter
Caesar. Ant. had been accused by Herod before him),636 detected the trickery637 of the resemblance even
17.332
before seeing the fellow.638 But yielding a bit of credence also for happier hopes639 he sent*
a certain Celadus640—one of those who “plainly knew Alexander”641—having directed [him]

632
nearly identical to this one. Augustus’ aide Celadus The structure of this sentence is strikingly simi-
(2.106) appears to be in this group. lar to that of 2.104: past-tense form of ἔρχοµαι + εἰς
626
Or “would swear”: following the set-up of this τόσουτον + genitive noun + ὥστε + result clause with
sentence with “to such” and “that” (anticipating result present infinitive. Josephus’ repetition of this structure
clause), this present infinitive (διόµνυσθαι) might indi- reinforces the sense of astonishment at the impostor’s
cate only a potential result rather than a real one. But success.
633
in 2.105 the same structure is used, and there the result In the sense of paying court by providing an entou-
(carrying in a litter and so on) seems real. rage of attendants (θεραπεία). See the note to “attentive-
627
Although this may sound unbelievably gullible, ness” at 2.2.
there are modern parallels. Cf. Welch 2007 on the 20th- 634
The adverb ἀκριβῶς is not in the best MSS (PAM),
century Polish factory worker Franziska Schanzkowska, though Latin has optime, matching the Greek adverb in
who impersonated Grand Duchess Anastasia (ironically, MSS LVRC, and the ἀκριβ- word group is favored by
her name means “resurrection”) Nikolaevna, alleged Josephus.
635
survivor of the 1918 massacre that destroyed the Rus- Greek χαρακτῆρας (accusative) suggests engrav-
sian Romanovs, persuading even relatives and some ing or branding (something dug in), such as on coins.
family friends. Only the most famous of nearly a dozen Note the similar usage at Ant. 13.322.
636
claimants to Anastasia’s identity, she became known in The story was in 1.452 (cf. Ant. 16.91): Alexander
America as Anna Anderson. Her claim was not disproven was accused by Herod, before Caesar, of trying to poison
until 1994, a decade after her death, by DNA testing of him—a charge that reportedly resulted from his brother
her remains. Antipater’s machinations.
628 637
The sarcasm is heightened by a possibly implied Greek ἀπάτη. War 2 is dense with the language
comparison with a true leader’s triumphant return: the of guile, trickery, fraud, deceit, deception, and dupes—
same language is used of Vespasian’s greeting in Rome all translations of the word-group (ἀπατάω, ἀπατεών,
at 7.69-71. On the language of spectacle here (ἡ θέα), ἀπάτη), of which the noun is used here. Of the 78
see Chapman 1998. occurrences of these forms in Josephus, 8 are in War 2
629
See the note to this characteristic phrase at 2.43. and 4 are in the parallel sections of Ant. 20 (160, 167,
630
The city’s crowded alleyways would have been all 188)—nearly a 6th of the whole. Although I could have
too familiar to Josephus’ Roman audience; see famously used English “trick” as a base for all forms (trick[s], the
the complaints that Juvenal puts in the mouth of his tricked, trickster, trickery/trick) to highlight the consis-
friend Umbricius, who is fleeing to the more salubrious tency in Greek, that would not always convey the most
Cumae (Sat. 3.232-67). apt sense in a particular context; I indicate the thematic
631
Greek φρενοβλάβεια vividly implies damage unity with notes.
638
to the reasoning faculty, in distinction from the more Ant. 17.332 plausibly elaborates: Caesar knew that
abstract words for madness or fervor such as µανία; Herod could not have been so easily deceived in a matter
this vivid word is also used of Nero’s exploits in the of supreme importance to him.
639
theater at 2.251 below. Neither this noun nor its cognates For the pairing of these two words, ironically sug-
is widely attested (Herodotus 2.120; Euripides, Frag. gesting futile hope, see 1.616; 6.364 has the adjective
oen. 40.5; Hippocrates, Ep. 17.186; Dionysius, Ant. rom. ἱλαρός alone in a similar vein.
640
5.9.2) before Philo, who uses the word group 20 times. Ant. 17.332 identifies this man as a freedman of
Josephus, who has 5 occurrences—in War only (1.625; Caesar’s, a situation also suggested by his Greek name
2.105, 251; 6.398, 401)—appears to be using newly fash- (“loud noise, din”). Pelletier (29 n. 2) suggests that the
ionable language, which occurs then also in Plutarch name might be a corruption of the Céladon (Keladèn),
(Nic. 4.6), Lucian (Syr. dea 18, 43), and later authors. which appears in Ovid, Met. 5.144; 12.250. But the
book two 69

to bring the young man to him. 107 Now when he642 saw him, he determined643 very quickly
the differences in the face, and once he had ascertained that his whole body was harder [than
Alexander’s] and indeed slavish-looking,644 he grasped the whole scheme.645 108 But what
entirely provoked646 him was the brazenness647 of the things being said by him [“Alexander”].
For to those who were trying to find out about Aristobulus648 this fellow would say that, al-
though he was being kept safe, he had been purposely649 left behind on Cyprus,650 protected

name does not seem to require special explanation: Solin usually it was the reverse recognition—of an apparent
(2003: 2.1211-12) lists about 60 examples (under the slave as in fact a free man.
644
rubric “noise-names”), mostly found among slaves and The adjective δουλοφανής, remarkably, occurs
freedmen. only here in all known Greek literature. Tacitus (Hist.
641
This phrase picks up the category of persons men- 2.8) says that according to some reports, the first false
tioned in 2.104. Thus one assumes that Celadus was Nero (see note to “Alexander” at 1.101) was a slave,
among those duped, as Ant. 17.332 makes clear, though from Pontus.
645
the following narrative is far less clear. Outside of Josephus’ reproduction of Strabo’s neu-
642
The antecedent of this pronoun, hence the subject tral use of σύνταγµα for a troop (Ant. 14.116), this word
of the following story, is not clear. Thackeray (in LCL), has distinctly pejorative connotations in his narratives, as
Pelletier, and M-B take it to be Celadus who immediately something craftily arranged (War 1.495; 2.172, 290) or,
detects the fraud on seeing the man, who is irritated by if referring to a group, a band of bandits or similar (τὸ
the story concerning Aristobulus, and who offers him his σύνταγµα τῶν λῃστῶν, War 4.135, 509, 513, 558; Ant.
life (in the name of Caesar) if he names his collabora- 20.161; Life 106).
646
tor. The latter half of 2.109 would favor this reading if See the note at 2.8. This rise of intense emotion
it meant that the impostor followed Celadus to Augustus (absent from the Antiquities parallel) artfully prepares
(ἕπεται πρὸς Καίσαρα)—implying that he has been with for its resolution in Caesar’s laughter at 2.110: a comic
Celadus until this point. The Latin follows this read- scene, after all.
647
ing, helpfully inserting Celadus’ name (Ladus) twice Josephus’ word (τόλµα)—“daring, courage, spirit-
in 2.109. edness; boldness, audacity, impudence”—can be either a
Problems with such a reading: (a) the simple article virtue or a vice (2.412; 4.139, 158, 186-88), depending
for a ponoun here (rather than οὗτος to clarify that it upon context. Often in War it does not fall neatly into
is the last-named character) might more naturally make either category, but simply indicates rather a manly dar-
the subject of the preceding sentence (Caesar) the sub- ing in the face of improbable odds—often of those who
ject of this one; (b) Celadus’ mission (2.106) appears drove the rebellion against the aristocrats and Romans
restricted to bringing the man to Augustus, so that the (3.14, 22, 149, 161, 176, 228, 452, 479, 498 [of Titus,
emperor may interview him and make his deductions; approvingly]; 4.90; 5.306)—without implying a verdict
(c) the similarity of language between 2.104 and 2.106 on their larger undertaking. War uses τόλµα 52 times
tends to support the claim of Ant. 17.332 that Celadus (the much longer Antiquities only 24); the verb τολµάω
was among those who [thought they] “knew Alexander 51 times; τόλµηµα 10 times; τολµηρός 10 times; and
plainly” and yet were fooled by him; (d) the brilliant and even τολµητής once. Cf. Ant. 6.343-50, where Josephus’
immediate detection of the plot might suit Caesar bet- expatiation on Saul’s paradigmatic manliness, courage,
ter than Celadus; and (e) the parallel at Ant. 17.332-37 and greatness of soul entirely dwarfs his obituary notice
makes a sharp distinction between Celadus’ ignorance concerning Saul’s disobedience to divine commands
(in spite of having known the boys) and Caesar’s wise (6.378; cf. 6.335-36).
648
perception, and clearly has Caesar conduct the interview, According to Ant. 17.334 it is Augustus himself
finally offering him his life. Although Josephus often who questions the impostor about Aristobulus. Aristobu-
changes characters and roles in his later version, where lus was (the real) Alexander’s brother, publicly executed
the basic plot can be read as harmonious we should read with him on conspiracy charges (cf. 1.540-51).
649
it that way. On balance, we should perhaps favor Caesar Although in some other literature ἐπίτηδες can
(Augustus) as the subject of the sentence. See further suggest deceit (Euripides, Iph. aul. 476), and Josephus
the following notes. might indeed be playing with the two senses here, else-
643
This recognition scene has parallels going back to where in War (1.82; 2.190; 5.24, 61, 150) the adverb
the Odyssey (e.g., 21.205-28) in Greek literature, and seems to mean only “purposely.”
650
to the Joseph story in the Bible (cf. Esau and Jacob). Although the island of Cyprus, a senatorial prov-
Roman comedy also dealt in such revelations, though ince at this time (since 22 BCE)—about 250 miles (400
70 book two

against plots: for while they were split up651 they were less vulnerable to being attacked.
109 He652 took him away in private, therefore, and declared, “The reward you have from
Caesar653 is life—for identifying the one who induced654 you655 to do such deceitful things.”
And so the fellow, having said that he would make him known to him, followed* with
Caesar656 and pointed out* the Judean who had exploited his resemblance657 for a business:
for he had taken “so many gifts at each town that Alexander didn’t658 take as many while
alive!”659 110 Caesar laughed at these words and, while he consigned660 Pseudalexander661

km) NW of Judea in the Mediterranean—appears only ander follows both of them as he proceeds to identify the
here in War, Antiquities describes something of the culprit. Much more clearly Ant. 17.337, which has had
Judean community there (Ant. 13.284-87, cf. 328, 331, Pseudalexander speaking with Caesar all along, now has
358). Augustus had reportedly given King Herod control him explain the whole scheme—without the confusing
over the copper mines of the island (Ant. 16.128). stage movements. On balance it seems best to follow
651
The theme of separated brothers was standard fare Whiston’s “followed Caesar” (who has been speaking
in New and Roman comedy (cf. Plautus’ Menaechmi with him all along).
657
and Terence’s Adelphi), a circumstance that might add See the note to “collaborator” at 2.102. Whereas
to the comic potential of this story. Although it is well Ant. 17. 332-38 presents the partner as an older mentor
enough attested in earlier authors, with 1-5 occurrences and evil genius, this passage ultimately puts the fraud
in Euripides, Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Theophras- down to a money-making scheme.
658
tus, a few more examples in Aristoxenus and fragments Although the better MSS (PAM) omit the nega-
of Chrysippus, the verb διαζεύγνυµι is a particular tive, leaving a straight comparison of gifts received by
favorite of Philo’s, who has it some 59 times. Josephus Alexander and his impostor, the negative found in the
uses it 11 times, Galen 39 times. Latin (non accepisset) and MSS LVRC seems to fit the
652
See the note to “he” at 2.107. Here the Latin clari- humorous atmosphere slightly better.
659
fies by inserting the name Ladus (for Celadus), though we This is in quotation marks because the next sen-
should perhaps favor Caesar, for reasons given above. tence precludes the possibility that this sentence is a
653
The language is ironic, since the princeps was straightforward editorial observation. The quoted words
understood to be, and portrayed himself as, the world’s might begin as early as “exploited . . . .” If it is correct
chief patron, benefactor to his millions of dependents that Caesar (not Celadus) has been speaking with the
(Millar 1977; Saller 1982: 41-78). Although this 3rd- impostor thus far, then it must be Pseudalexander who
person reference to Caesar might imply that Celadus is provokes the emperor’s laughter. Alternatively, Celadus
speaking, other considerations indicate Augustus himself has been speaking all along and the words are his—in
(see note to “he” at 2.107), in which case it is an impe- contrast to Ant. 17.332-38.
660
rial self-reference. Curiously, this verb (ἐγκατατάσσω) occurs only
654
See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. here and again in the next sentence (2.111) in Jose-
655
See the note to “collaborator” at 2.102: in the phus—another example of his habit of using a word once
Antiquities parallel, this other man is presented as an or twice and then discarding it (see BJP 9. lii). This verb
older teacher. is rare before Josephus’ time: the geographer Hipparchus
656
Or “followed him to Caesar.” The language (ἕπεται (Geog. frag. 63.9); twice in Ps-Longinus (Subl. 10.7.5;
πρὸς Καίσαρα) is awkward on any reading. Although it 43.4.1)—variously dated from 1st to 3rd centuries CE;
is most naturally read such that the impostor has been and in Onasander’s mid-1st century book on generalship
speaking with Celadus (but see the note to “he” at (Strat. 10.3.14). Russell and Winterbottom (1972: 461)
2.107), and follows him (understood) in going to Caesar note the parallels between Longinus and Philo. Perhaps
(so Thackeray in LCL, Pelletier, and M-B; cf. the similar Josephus had some of the same literary influences: there
constructions at Ant. 1.292; 9.25; 20.97), that would not are many parallels to Philo’s diction throughout War 2.
661
make perfect sense of the context, for the eventual going The comic atmosphere of this episode is enhanced
to Caesar would have no substance: he follows to Caesar by Josephus’ obviously made-up name (we never learn
and points out the culprit (Was the culprit with Caesar?). the man’s real name, even from Ant. 17.336 where
The Latin, though assumming that Celadus (Ladus) has Augustus demands: “Simply tell me who you yourself
been the interlocutor all along, nevertheless gives ad actually are. . . !”). This name recalls the Pseuderakles of
caesarem at ladum sequitur, suggesting that Pseudalex- Menander (mentioned, e.g., by Plutarch, Mor. 59c).
book two 71

to the rowers because of the good condition of his body,662 he directed that the man who
had induced663 him664 be done away with. As for the Melians, their expenditures were
adequate punishment for their stupidity.665
(7.3) 111 When Archelaus had received the ethnarchy666 and, in memory of old con- Archelaus
flicts,667 treated savagely not only the Judeans but even the Samarians,668 and each of exiled. Ant.
17.349
them had sent embassies669 against him to Caesar,670 in the ninth year671 of his rule he
himself was banished*672 to Bienna, a city of Gallia [Gaul],673 while his property674 was

662
Presumably, Augustus made the impostor a slave. supportive of the Herodian regime in the past (see note
On the good conditioning required for rowing, cf. Poly- to “Samaria” at 2.69). Simonetti (746 n. 152) observes
bius 10.17.12-15, describing Scipio’s treatment of his that the appearance of embassies from both Judeans and
prisoners from the capture of New Carthage in 210 Samarians is an index to a broad perception of misrule.
BCE: “he selected those whose strength, appearance, On “Samarians,” see 2.232 and notes.
669
and age made them most suitable and mixed them in According to Strabo (16.2.46) and Cassius Dio
with his ships’ crews.” Slaves were assigned to the crews (55.27.6), Archelaus’ brothers Antipas and Philip, who
of warships, and could hope for their eventual freedom had challenged him for the kingship in 4 BCE, also
(as Polybius notes). The Roman state did not operate a traveled to Rome in 6 CE, to defend their own admin-
merchant marine, which depended upon private enter- istrations and to join in the accusation of Archelaus.
prise (Aldrete and Mattingly 1999: 177-92). Kokkinos (1998: 228 n. 84) adduces in support inscrip-
663
See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. tional evidence (OGIS 417) of a trip to Rome by Antipas
664
That is, the collaborator of 2.102; this phrase picks in that year.
670
up the language of Caesar’s offer in 2.109. Although Ant. 17.342 notes that the delegates justified their
this sentence makes the collaborator responsible for the embassies on the ground that Archelaus disobeyed the
whole affair, as does the parallel in Ant. 17.324-38, he stern charge from Caesar, at his appointment, to exercise
was introduced in 2.102 as responsible for the fabricated mildness. Caesar’s charge is implied at War 2.93.
671
story about switched bodies. The parallel at Ant. 17.342 (as also Life 5) cor-
665
It is unclear whether Josephus intends this as rects this to the tenth year, or 6 CE—a case in which
his own editorial remark or rather as part of Augustus’ the later work evidently depends on this one (rather
assessment (“were deemed adequate punishment. . . .”). than Josephus’ abbreviating sources here that are more
It is possible that the alleged stupidity continues to play fully or accurately presented in Antiquities). Kokkinos
upon this island’s image from Thucydides’ Melian dia- (1998: 228 n. 83) and Pelletier (30 n. 2, 204-5) note Dio
logue (see note to “Melos” at 2.103), although there they 55.27.6: Archelaus was banished during the consulate
are more naïve than gullible. of Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius = 6 CE. On
666
Josephus finally resumes the main succession nar- Archelaus’ removal cf. Smallwood 1981: 117. Remark-
rative that began bk. 2, picking up the story left at 2.93, ably, this sentence fragment is all that Josephus records
before the digression on the false Alexander. Although of Archelaus’ 10-year rule in War (aside from the occult
he has been de facto ruler of Judea since his father’s episode following), in sharp contrast to its detailed treat-
death, it is crucial to the story’s themes that Archelaus ment of the succession issue, which has occupied most of
only now “receives” the rule from Caesar (e.g., 2.2-3). 2.1-110. This emphasis on succession can hardly be acci-
667
Josephus has not made the precise nature of these dental, since Josephus presumably has some information
differences clear. Some are perhaps the controversies of about Archelaus’ decade-long reign; in Ant. 17.339-41 he
2.5-13, except that Archelaus there appears to have jus- at least describes a few of the ethnarch’s achievements
tice on his side, in dealing with determined revolutionar- (including the removal and appointment of high priests
ies after his patience is exhausted. This passage implies and building projects). In War he chooses to focus all but
more extensive conflicts, perhaps dating (cf. “old”) from exclusively on the succession entanglements, in keep-
the period of his father Herod’s reign. Other enemies of ing with his deep interest in matters of governance and
Archelaus may include supporters of his brother Antipas’ constitution, aristocracy, kingship, and tyranny (a major
royal candidacy and the rebel leaders of 2.55-65 (note theme of War ); see Introduction and Mason 2008b.
672
2.63-64). Banishment from the city where one’s ancestry,
668
This notice comes as a surprise because in the pre- identity, and status were grounded, even if the place of
ceding narrative the Samarians were emphatically not exile was fairly comfortable in itself, was considered a
part of the revolts that broke out in Archelaus’ absence shameful and severe punishment for a member of the
(2.69); their loyalty had earned them substantial tax relief élite, who would identify closely with the leadership of
(2.96). Moreover, they seem to have been conspicuously his own state; cf. 1.661.
72 book two

consigned*675 to Caesar’s treasuries.676 112 Before being summoned by Caesar, they say,677
he saw a dream like this:678 he imagined679 he saw nine680 full and tall stalks of grain681
being devoured682 by oxen.683 He sent for the seers684 and some of the Chaldeans,685 and

673
Vienna (or Vienne) was a significant city on the 54-56; Masi 1971; Brunt 1990: 134-62; Alpers 1995; Lo
Rhone River (SE modern France), across the Alps from Cascio 2000; Millar 2004: 47-72. Crucial primary texts
Italy in Gallia Narbonensis. It lay on the highway just S include Seneca, Ben. 7.6.3; Pliny, Pan. 42.1; Cassius Dio
of the Roman capital of the 3 Gauls: Lugdunum. This 69.8.1; 71.32.2.
Vienna had fallen to the Romans in 121 BCE and been Although Josephus does not explain here whether
made a colonia with Latin rights by Julius Caesar after Archelaus’ property was held and leased or liquidated,
his visits in 58 and 52 BCE. Relocation from the extreme Ant. 17.355 claims that the new Syrian legatus Quirin-
E of the empire to the extreme (and Latin-speaking) W ius sold the property. On Jones’ model (1950; cf. 1937:
emphasized Archelaus’ displacement from all the social 120-21), the proceeds might well have remained in the
networks and avenues of influence that had been the provincial fiscus for imperial use, though Millar (2004:
basis of his status in Jerusalem. On Archelaus’ exile cf. 62) takes Josephus’ construction to imply confiscation to
Strabo 16.2.46; Dio 55.27.6. the emperor’s personal estate (fiscus).
674 677
The Herodian royal property in Judea has been an According to Ant. 17.345 it was Archelaus who
issue of ongoing contention: Augustus’ immediate sei- related this dream to his friends.
678
zure of it may be intended to preclude Sabinus’ renewed Archelaus’ dream anticipates, in form and content,
efforts to interfere: cf. 2.16-19. Herod’s last known inten- the momentous dreams later in Josephus concerning high
tion (1.646) was to bequeath only 1,000 talents, along office, involving the biblical Joseph (Ant. 2.64-86) and
with unnamed other gifts, to Augustus (in that case, Daniel (Ant. 10.195-210) as dream-interpreters. Like
presumably, to his personal patrimonium; see note to this one, Pharaoh’s dream— interpreted by Joseph—is
“treasuries” in this section). about oxen and stalks of grain (Ant. 2.81-86); Nebu-
675
See the note to this word in 2.110. chadnezzar’s, interpreted by Daniel, likewise involves
676
This phrase (τοῖς Καίσαρος θησαυροῖς) appears to the unsuccessful efforts of seers, Chaldeans, and Magi.
represent the Latin fisci Caesaris (cf. Ant. 18.158; 19.28, Without providing comparable specifics in his own case,
where the form is singular), though Josephus is the only Josephus will nonetheless identify himself as an unpar-
literary source for the Greek phrase. In the late Repub- alleled interpreter of dreams (War 3.351-53; 4.623-29;
lic all public revenue and expenses had been channeled cf. Gray 1993: 35-79). Such dreams are by no means
through the aerarium Saturni, the state treasury, which confined to the biblical world. Cf. Oppenheim 1956;
could be used only by senatorial decree. Each province Gnuse 1996. The future emperor Julian confided, in a
also held a “chest” (fiscus—lit. “basket”) for local rev- letter before his accession (Ep. 14), a dream concerning
enue and disbursement at the discretion of the governor, a great tree, fallen, and a young tree rising strong beside
who had to reconcile his accounts with the aerarium on it—though he professed to have no idea of the vision’s
returning to Rome. Finally, the wealthy Roman élite also significance.
679
enjoyed their personal fisci. Since Augustus and his suc- Introducing a dream report with “he imagined [or
cessors in the principate became in effect governors of thought he saw, δοκέω]” was common in Greek accounts;
all their provinces (i.e., their single provincia), they took see J. S. Hanson 1980: 1409. So also, in the context of
control of the provincial fisci, a major source of state Joseph’s dream interpretation, Ant. 2.71, 81. For detailed
income, and their appointees controlled the aerarium. As analysis of these two dreams, see Gnuse 1996: 193ff.
680
wealthy men, each also had his personal fisci (privatum or In keeping with its adjustment of Archelaus’
patrimonium). It has been a matter of energetic scholarly tenure as ethnarch to 10 years (Ant. 17.342), Anti-
debate whether —and if so, when—the early emperors qui ties (17.345) will also change the number of
also came to control a separate public treasury called the stalks to 10!
681
fiscus, or whether the word was simply co-opted, confus- Josephus uses here the old Attic plural στάχυς,
ingly, for “the whole financial administration controlled in keeping with the Atticizing tendencies of the War,
by the emperor” (A. H. M. Jones 1950: 25): his personal whereas in LXX Gen 41.7; Matt 12:1; Mark 2:23; Luke
estate, which often supplemented the aerarium, the latter 6:1 the form is στάχυας, which Josephus will use in the
also being sustained by the provincial fisci. Beginning at Joseph story (Ant. 2.83). The fullness and size of the
least with Tiberius (but probably already Augustus) the grain (but moreso the oxen) is paralleled in the Joseph
princeps appointed a Chief Accountant (a rationibus) to story: Ant. 2.81-83.
682
manage his public income and expenditures. Cf. inter Josephus uses this intensified compound verb
alios Frank 1933; Syme 1939: 410; Rostovtzeff 1957: (καταβιβρώσκω) only here.
book two 73

kept inquiring what they thought it signified. 113 Though others were interpreting it dif- Dreams of
ferently, a certain Simon, an Essaeus by type,686 said he supposed that687 the stalks of grain Archelaus,
Glaphyra. Ant.
17.345

683
Cf. the oxen in Pharaoh’s dream at Ant. 2.81. Greek spelling for the singular (Ἐσσαῖος: War 1.78;
684
Since Judas the Essaeus has been called a seer this passage; 3.11; Ant. 13.311; 17.346) and another
(µάντις) at War 1.78 (cf. Ant. 13.311), this general cat- for the plural (Ἐσσηνοί: War 2.119, 158, 160; 5.145;
egory may include Simon here. Ant. 13.171-73, 298; 15.372-78; 18.18-22; Life 10-12);
685
Although Chaldeans (Aram. Kaldaya, from the see Excursus above and table. Only once does he use
land of Kaldu) were originally the inhaibitants of a land the plural Ἐσσαῖοι (Ant. 15.371-78), and that is only
in S. Babylonia, part of the Arsacid Parthian empire when to explain that the group is known by this term among
Josephus was writing, already by the time of Herodotus Judeans, but then goes on to use the familiar Ἐσσηνοί
(1.181, 183) the name had come also to refer specifically for his Greek-speaking audience. The easiest explana-
to Babylonian priests (magi) with expert knowledge of tion of the variation, then, seems to be that the name of
various occult sciences: astrology, prediction based upon the Essenes was already known in the n-form, and so
astrological signs, and magic (Polybius 43.2.7; Strabo, he accommodated his audience’s expectation; but when
Geog. 16.1.6 [cf. 1.2.15]; Lucian, Fug. 8; Pausanias he referred to an individual, since there was no estab-
4.32.4). Such Chaldeans and magi were well known in lished usage in Greek and Latin, and it sounded odd to
Rome (Cicero, Div. 1.2, 91; 2.70; Juvenal, Sat. 6.533; call someone an Ἐσσηνός—a form that might also have
Apuleius, Met. 2.12-14; Apol. 97; Hist. Alex. Magn. distracting resonances (cf. Callimachus, Iov. 66; Aet. fr.
5.1.22): long ridiculed by some as charlatan practitioners 178 l. 23; Herodian, Pros. cath. 3.1.15.5, 16; Suda s.v.)
of an irrational science (Cicero, Div. 2.87-100; Tacitus, —, he had nothing to lose by using the Semitic -ai form
Ann. 2.27; 3.22; 12.22, 52, 68), but also feared by those for the singular.
in power for their potential to predict doom (Tacitus, Support for this explanation comes from the follow-
Ann. 6.20; 14.9; 16.14). Tacitus alleges that the emperor ing. (a) Whereas Christian and other Judean authors
Tiberius had trained in Chaldean skills while living in (the NT authors and early rabbis) mention only Phari-
Rhodes (Ann. 6.20). Though somewhat unexpected in sees and Sadducees among the voluntary associations
Archelaus’ Judean court (they appear only here in War ), of Judea, writers with more historical-ethnographical
these Chaldeans anticipate Josephus’ story of the Baby- interests mention only Essenes and neither of the others:
lonian king Nebuchadnezzar in Ant. 10.194-99. There— Philo (Prob. 57-71; Hypothetica, in Eusebius, Praep. ev.
the only other passage in Josephus where µάντεις (seers) 8.11-12 [379-84]), Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.73), and Dio
and Chaldeans are mentioned together—the same groups of Prusa (in Synesius, Dio 3.2). So anyone who knew
are summoned (pleonastically with magi) to explain Pliny’s or Dio’s work, for example, might remember the
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, with the same lack of success name Esseni. (b) In this work directed at an audience in
as here, except that there they are shown up by the gifted Rome (1.1-8), Josephus also devotes by far the largest
Judean Daniel rather than by an Essene. Cf. Gnuse 1996: amount of space to the Essenes, beginning with a refer-
132 and the literature there. Although it is not entirely ence to their reputation (2.119) and making a point of
implausible that Archelaus kept Chaldeans or other seers their Judean ancestry, perhaps considering that that was
in his court for such purposes, one must suspect literary not widely known (cf. repeated gens in Pliny, Nat. 5.73).
manipulation, or some kind of transfer from the Daniel (c) Whereas Philo, a fellow-Ioudaios, consistently uses
story (in his own mind, at least), on Josephus’ part. the -aios- form for both singular and plural, in keeping
The story might also have gained force from recent with Josephus’ explanation, the Greek and Latin authors
events. About a decade before Josephus’ time of writ- mentioned use only the n-form (they lack examples of
ing, the Persian Tiridates (about to receive the throne of the singular): they knew them as Esseni and Ἐσσηνοί,
Armenia from Nero) came to Rome: he and some of his which explains his choice of this plural in spite of what
entourage were magi. Nero reportedly took advantage of he describes as native usage. (d) Pausanias (8.13.1) men-
their presence to try to raise the shades of his murdered tions priests and priestesses of the goddess Artemis who
mother Agrippina; their failure led him to denounce magi spend their lives in purity (including sexual) and do not
as frauds (Pliny, Nat. 30.4-7; cf. Suetonius, Nero 34). take baths, and certain “banquet hosts” (ἱστιάτορες)
686
Greek Ἐσσαῖος τὸ γένος: or “by ancestry, origin, in Ephesus who follow the same lifestyle for a year
birth, race, tribe, group, bloc, class, kind.” Both parts only, and are known to the citizens there as “Essenes”
present interpretative problems. On Ἐσσαῖος: When (καλουµένους . . . Ἐσσῆνας). Whether Josephus’ audi-
he speaks of Essenes, Josephus habitually uses one ence had heard of the Judean Essenes (Essaioi, Essenoi)
74 book two

were years, whereas the oxen were a reversal of circumstances,688 because they [oxen]
altered the countryside while ploughing.689 So he [Archelaus] would exercise kingship690

or not, it seems that he used the –n plural to meet an make it difficult to understand γένος in the sense of tribe
audience expectation. or ancestral group. Philo (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11
The Aramaic or Hebrew term underlying Essaios [379b]) pointedly rejects the term γένος on the ground
remains a subject of debate. Proposals have included: that the Essenes are a voluntary organization, though his
“secret ones” (‫[ חשאים‬Kohler 1901-1906: 230-32; cf. conscious rejection of the term might confirm that others
2.137-42]), “healers” ( ‫[ חסיא‬Vermes 1960]), “pious were using it—as Pliny would use gens.
ones” (‫חסין‬, ‫ ; חסיא‬cf. Heb. ‫)חסידים‬, and “doers [of To complicate matters: in some cases Josephus uses
the Torah]” (from ‫[ עושה התורה‬Goranson 1984]; see γένος of a philosophical school, apparently meaning in
Grabbe 1992: 496-97; VanderKam 1994: 91-92). A com- that case only “kind,” “type,” or genus of a species (cf.
plication: at least in the case of John the Ἐσσαῖος at War εἴδη, “forms” [of philosophy]” at War 2.119). Thus in
2.567 and 3.11, the label seems to indicate his origin in Ant. 13.172 he uses γένος of the Essenes, where he is
a place called Essa: the commanders named with John contrasting the three Judean schools on their philosophi-
are described as Niger the Perean (i.e., from Perea, by cal views: there it seems to be merely an alternative to
γένος in 2.567) and Silas the Babylonian. When John αἵρεσις (“school, party, faction”) in the previous sen-
is called the Ἐσσαῖος, therefore, the label would natu- tence. At Ant. 15.371 says that the γένος of Essaioi, “as
rally be read as indicating an origin in “Essa.” Essa is they are called among us,” follow the way of life taught
attested in Josephus as an alternative name for Gerasa in to the Greeks by Pythagoras. But it is not only the Ess-
the Decapolis (Ant. 14.393; cf. War 1.104), which was enes: at Ant. 13.297 the Sadducees are a γένος. Possibly,
home to a famous Pythagorean writer on mathematics Josephus is playing language games, using the familiar
and music (Nicomachus). designation of the Essenes while implicitly qualifying it
It may be significant, then, that Josephus compares by his narrative. However these problems are resolved,
Essenes with Pythagoreans (cf. Taylor 2004) just where this use of τὸ γένος for Simon the Essene does match
he mentions the Essa name (Ant. 15.371)—if the group’s Josephus’ usage elsewhere, and the introduction of an
name in fact arose from a place (so Bergmeier 1998, but Essaios here helps to prepare for the long passage on
with a different Essa in view). Just as “Chaldean” had the Ἐσσηνοί that soon follows (2.119-61).
687
come to mean something quite different from its origi- Josephus often discusses the remarkable Essene
nal geographical referent (see note at 2.112), the name ability, singularly and collectively, to predict the future:
Ἐσσαῖος might have come to the Essenes from an old War 1.78; Ant. 13.311; 15.372-78; 17.346; cf. War 2.136
geographical origin but changed its meaning over time. on other occult powers.
688
As Cicero must explain concerning the Chaldeans, their Greek µεταβολὴν πραγµάτων, repeated later
name derives not from their currently well-known abili- in this sentence (in plural). The motif “reversals [or
ties but from their ancestry (non ex artis sed ex gentis upheavals, of fortune]” is fundamental to War (see the
vocabulo nominati; Div. 1.2). notes to “upheaval” at 1.5, 23 and the Introduction).
The second, possibly related puzzle is τὸ γένος. Nor- This particular cliché—reversal of circumstances—was
mally, Josephus uses this phrase to indicate one’s place established in the Athenian orators (Isocrates, Pan. 138;
of origin, ancestry, or birth—especially in the phrase Areop. 6; Antid. 161; Aeschines, Ctes. 79) and Aristotle
Ἰουδαῖος τὸ γένος, a “Judean by birth [or ancestry]”; (Ep. 3; Rhet. 1371a; Div. Arist. 49). Historians before
see Cohen 1994. Just a few sentences further on, the Josephus who use the phrase fairly often are his model
Essenes will be described as Ἰουδαῖοι γένος ὄντες. The Polybius (3.3.2; 9.23.4, 26.6; 30.8), Diodorus (19.52.6,
word γένος, moreover, occurs regularly in conjunction 59.6; 20.60.2, 102.3; 26.12.2), and Dionysius (Ant. rom.
with Ἐσσαῖος: at War 1.78 (of Judas the Essene), Ant. 8.25.3; Din. 3.54). Philo has the phrase several times
13.311 (of Judas), and 17.346 (of Simon, as here). This (Post. Cain. 109; Gig. 28; Abr. 81; Spec. 2.67) and Plu-
would fit with the speculation above about the geographi- tarch exploits its dramatic possibilities in his Lives: Publ.
cal origin of the name; it may be relevant that Pliny 1.3; Per. 9.1; Timol. 14.4; Pel. 13.7; Mar. 42.1, 45.9;
the Elder apparently regarded the Esseni as a distinct 11.7; Nic. 19.10; Alex. 17.1; Cato Min. 53.3; Demetr.
tribe or even race (gens twice: Nat. 5.73), except that 30.4; 41.8; Arat. 17.6; Artax. 21.5. Josephus also uses
he also mentions their practice of self-perpetuation by it several times (Ant. 8.235; 15.264; 17.346-47; 18.118;
taking in outsiders (so, not a tribe). Josephus speaks of Life 26, 87; cf. War 2.259).
689
their adopting others’ children (War 2.120), which would This elaboration, that oxen are connected with
book two 75

for the number [of years] of stalks of grain,691 but after having been in various reversals
of circumstances he would expire.692 After hearing these things, five days later, Archelaus
was summoned to his trial.693
(7.4) 114 I considered worthy of mention also the dream of his wife Glaphyra, who
was the daughter of Archelaus, the king of Cappadocia:694 she had first been the wife
of Alexander,695 who was brother of the Archelaus696 about whom we are narrating and
son of King Herod, by whom he was also disposed of,697 just as we have explained.698
115 After his death she wedded Ioba,699 king of Libya.700 When he expired,701 and she

ploughing, anticipates Joseph’s explanation of Pharaoh’s of Augustus. The princeps both recognized his rule and
dream at Ant. 2.84. The verb he uses for ploughing, enlarged his kingdom. Because of his friendship with
ἀροτριάω, occurs only here in his corpus and it is very Tiberius’ rival Gaius, in old age and failing health Arche-
rare in classical and Hellenistic Greek literature (Aesop, laus would be summoned by Tiberius to Rome, to face
Fab. 299.1; Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 4.12.13; Hist. charges of treason (17 CE); there he died, after aquittal,
plant. 8.6.3; Callimachus, Dian. 161), though common at which point his kingdom became a Roman province
in the LXX (15 times), Philo (Spec. 4.205), and NT (1 (Suetonius, Tib. 8.37; Tacitus, Ann. 2.42).
Cor 9:10; Luke 17:7). More standard is the ἀρόω used War 1 has said quite a bit about King Archelaus, fea-
in the parallel at Ant. 17.347. turing his personal intervention and trip to Judea when
690
Although the preceding story has emphasized that Glaphyra’s well-being was jeopardized by Herod’s anger
Archelaus did not hold the office of king, but only that with her husband, Herod’s son Alexander (1.499-512).
of ethnarch (2.2-3, 30-32, 37-38, 93-100 and notes), In that story King Archelaus appears as a master diplo-
Josephus can use βασιλεία-language loosely in rela- mat and psychologist, effecting multiple reconciliations
tion to Archelaus when it suits his purpose, as here (cf. through clever ploys.
695
Ant. 18.93; Life 5). Moreover, given the many parallels This marriage (ca. 17 BCE) was described in War
between Archelaus’ dream and the dreams of Pharaoh 1.446 (cf. Ant. 16.11). According to War 1.476-77; Ant.
and Nebuchadnezzar (see note to “this” at 2.112), he 16.193, 206-10, Glaphyra was fully a part of the dis-
may be deliberately assimilating Archelaus to the role sension in Herod’s court, not least because of her vocal
of the potentate who has a fateful dream interpreted by claim to independent noble ancestry. She and Alexan-
a pious Judean. der produced two sons, Tigranes and Alexander (War
691
MSS PMV give a variant spelling (followed by 1.552).
696
Niese but not by Thackeray) ἀσταχύων (rather than More precisely step-brother: whereas Alexander
σταχύων). Although it makes no difference to the Eng- had been the son of Herod and the Hasmonean Mari-
lish translation, this form of the word recalls the famous amme I, Archelaus was the son of Herod and the Samar-
story of Periander in Herodotus 5.92 (z.2) receiving cryp- ian Malthace (War 1.562-63).
697
tic advice from Thrasybulus on how to rule (by lopping The death of Alexander (with his brother Aristobu-
off the conspicuous stalks—there, rivals for power). lus), in 8 or 7 BCE, was recounted in War 1.550-51: they
692
It is not certain that Archelaus died in this Gallic were strangled in Sebaste/Samaria on Herod’s orders.
exile: he may have returned to Judea in the 20s CE. Cf. Herod reportedly sent Alexander’s widow Glaphyra back
Kokkinos 1988: 228-29. to her father in Cappadocia with her dowry (War 1.553).
693
According to Ant. 17.343, Augustus sent Arche- Josephus has just told the story of Pseudalexander, which
laus’ agent in Rome, also named Archelaus, to fetch begins with the reminder that Herod had eliminated his
the ethnarch. There it is the agent’s arrival in Judea that son Alexander (2.101), and at 2.178, 222 Josephus will
occurs 5 days after the ethnarch’s dream. recall the point repeatedly—constantly alluding to the
694
This Archelaus bore the name of his father, grand- pitfalls of monarchical succession.
698
father, and great-grandfather—the first a general of On Josephus’ use of either the editorial “we” or
Mithradates VI. His father, married to a former escort the 3rd person to describe himself in the War , like Caesar
named Glaphyra, had become caught up in the Roman (e.g., Bell. civ. 3.10) but unlike Herodotus and Thucy-
civil wars to his great disadvantage (Cicero, Fam. 15.4.6; dides, see the Introduction.
699
Strabo 12.537, 558). With the support of Marc Antony, Caius Iulius Iuba, King Juba II of Mauretania (ca.
however, the Archelaus who was that man’s son and Gla- 50 BCE – 23 [19/20?] CE), was a Roman citizen who
phyra’s father was made king of Cappadocia in 36 BCE had unusually close connections with the capital (cf.
(Appian, Bell civ. 5.7; Dio 49.32.3); he was of the same PIR2 4.118 no. 65); he normally used the Latin REX
vintage as Herod, whom he outlived to become a favorite IUBA on his coins. His father Juba I, king of Numidia
76 book two

(to the E of Mauretania), had played a prominent role or client kingdoms through the 1st century CE (Cyrene,
in the Roman civil wars as a partisan of Pompey the Africa, Numidia, and the Mauretanias). In his survey,
Great, raising forces against Julius Caesar with Cato Strabo thus describes Libya as the land that extends
and Scipio; he and Cato committed suicide in 46 BCE from Egypt (to the E) and Ethopia (to the S) all the
following Pompey’s defeat at Thapsus. In his triumph way along the Mediterranean to the Straits of Gibraltar
Caesar exhibited the infant son (b. 48 BCE) in place of (2.5.33). At 6.4.2 he remarks: “Both Mauretania [Mau-
the dead father. Brought up in Rome as a ward of, and rousia] and also many parts of the rest of Libya have
later soldier under, Octavian/Augustus, who granted him been transferred to Iuba [NB: still living, but cf. 17.3.7],
citizenship (D. Roller 2003: 59-75; cf. Braund 1984: on account of his good will and friendship toward the
16-17), Juba II was given the kingship of Mauretania Romans.” Strabo devotes a lengthy final section of his
(modern Morocco and NW Algeria) in 25 BCE, which survey to all these areas, under the heading of “Libya”
he seems to have held until his death, apparently in 23/24 (17.3). One of Juba’s own major studies was the Libyka;
CE (cf. Strabo 17.3.7; Dio 51.15.6; 53.26.2; 55.28.3; for other Greek authors on Libya see Ottone 2002.
701
Plutarch, Ant. 87; D. Roller 2003: 244). Here οὗ τελευτήσαντος; at Ant. 17.349, µεταστάν-
Augustus gave Juba II Cleopatra Selene, daughter τος. Josephus is mistaken in having Juba die at this point
of the deceased Antony and Cleopatra and ward of the and portraying Glaphyra as “returning” (to Cappadocia?)
emperor’s sister Octavia (Roller 2003: 76-90). Although a “widow.” Juba II lived until about 23/24 CE—Strabo
Cleopatra had been raised in Rome, like Juba, she may mentions his recent death as he composes the final book
not have been as Romanized as he; at least the coins of his Geographica (17.3.7), and his coins continue to
with her name on the reverse (in Greek) express keen the 48th regnal year (from 25 BCE)—, long after the
awareness of her Ptolemaic royal lineage. A scholar and story time here (Mazard 1955: 87, no. 187; Kokkinos
prolific writer (D. Roller 2003: 163-211, 261-63), Juba 1998: 228 n. 81; D. Roller 2003: 244-45). Juba II and
II was near 50 when he married Alexander’s widow Gla- Glaphyra must therefore have divorced around 4 CE, an
phyra, about 12 years his junior. The connections among event that Roller (note to “Ioba” in this section) plausi-
African, Egyptian, and Judean royals illustrate Braund’s bly connects with the king’s return to Mauretania from
observation (1984: 17) that the Roman education of for- Cappadocia. It would perhaps have enhanced Josephus’
eign nobility in the early empire promoted not merely the (Alexander’s) case against Glaphyra (that the marriage to
integration of client kings with Rome, but also of one Juba should have sufficed, 2.116) if he had known that
royal family with another. divorce rather than death had ended that marriage.
D. Roller has sketched plausible circumstances for Roller offers an explanation for Josephus’ error, on
this marriage to Glaphyra (2003: 212-26). Juba II was the basis of the two Greek terms (above): Whereas his
one of 3 scholar-diplomats designated by Augustus to source—likely Nicolaus—had spoken of Juba’s “depar-
assist Gaius Caesar, the emperor’s grandson and heir- ture” using the common sense of µεθίστηµι (“change
apparent (cf. War 2.25), in his Arabian-Parthian expe- position, move, shift”), Josephus misunderstood the word
dition, which began in 2 BCE (cf. Pliny, Nat. 12.56; (on account of imperfect Greek) as death, a possible but
32.10). Another member of the group was Glaphyra’s uncommon metaphorical sense. He did this both when he
father Archelaus. (Other members of the entourage were made Glaphyra a widow of Juba, in Antiquities and more
M. Lollius, P. Sulpicius Quirinius [later legate of Syria], clearly here in War, using the verb τελευτάω (“finish
and L. Aelius Seianus.) Roller argues that, although Juba life, expire”) of Juba. Ingenious though this theory is, it
II did not likely travel extensively with Gaius, he did presents problems. War is an impressive Greek produc-
make the journey E to the Arabian Gulf, perhaps leav- tion. Just where Josephus has the collaboration of learned
ing the expedition in 1 CE. From 2 CE he would have Greek associates, in War (Apion 1.50), he is supposed to
moved to Archelaus’ Cappadocian territory, “to write have misunderstood his source, even though he uses the
his report [On Arabia—known from fragments and cita- same verb himself in the ordinary sense of “travel” or
tions in Pliny, above] in Archelaos’ library and to marry “move away” (War 2.22; 3.399—of his own life story);
Glaphyra” (D. Roller 2003: 226). In that case, Glaphyra in Antiquities, where he consistently varies the language
need never have accompanied Juba to his Mauretanian of War , he happens to fall back on the precise diction of
kingdom: the brief marriage would have ended with his his source (Nicolaus) and yet still considers Glaphyra a
departure from Cappadocia in 4 CE (D. Roller 2003: “widow”; and throughout Antiquities too he uses the verb
248). dozens of times in its normal sense.
700
Libya was not the name of an administrative district We know that Josephus made a mistake, then; we do
before the 3rd century CE, but a convenient label for the not know why. It may simply result from his assumption,
vast region of N Africa (mod. Morocco, N Algeria, Tuni- without knowledge of the circumstances of Juba’s career,
sia, Libya) formerly dominated by Carthage (Herodotus that Glaphyra had been with him in Mauretania, and so
4.181, 196), and incorporating several Roman provinces would most likely have left at his death.
book two 77

returned702 and was living as a widow703 with her father, the ethnarch Archelaus gazed704
[at her] and got into such an erotic state705 that he immediately sent away706 Mariamme,707
who had been wedded to him, to take her for himself.708 116 When she came to Judea,
just a short time after her arrival she imagined Alexander standing in front of her, say-
ing:709 “Although the marriage in Libya710 was enough for you,711 not being satisfied with
this you double back712 to my hearth—a third husband, and in this case [it is] my brother

702
That is: to Cappadocia, a return implied also at Archelaus’ marriage to her must have been brief indeed,
Ant. 17.350, where Cappadocia is connected only with since she seems only to have been born in about 14
her widowhood. But see previous notes above. BCE, and so was not yet 20 when he divorced her for
703
This alleged widowhood of Glaphyra, temptress of Glaphyra; cf. Ant. 17.350.
708
this story, may in part be configured to evoke the image Josephus includes several stories of powerful men
of Dido from Virgil’s Aeneid; see the following notes. who “took” women for themselves on the basis of lustful
704
The erotic gaze is a well attested feature of ancient observation (e.g., Ant. 18.109-10: Antipas and Herodias;
poetry and novelistic writing. See Hirt 2001 and, for 20.141-42: Felix and Drusilla; cf. 7.130-31: David and
novelistic-erotic elements in Josephus generally, Braun Bathsheba). Inasmuch as passion prevails over virtue, all
1934; Moehring 1957. Archelaus must have been trav- such events appear to be implicitly wrong for Josephus
eling through Cappadocia (or Cilicia), like Juba before and his audience (even if they serve to spice the narra-
him, perhaps on a trip to Rome, in about 4 or 5 CE; cf. tive). Although he restrains any editorial condemnation,
Kokkinos 1998: 227. Josephus often points out the disastrous cosequences of
705
In War, eros (ἔρως) has appeared most prominently such passion-indulgence, as here. Contrast the behavior
in Josephus’ descriptions of Antony’s passion for Cleo- of the Essenes in the portrait that soon follows: 2.120.
709
patra (1.243, 359) and of Herod’s for Mariamme (1.436 If the comparison with Dido and Aeneas (see previ-
twice, 440, 441, 442, 444, 484; cf. Pheroras’ troubles ous notes) holds, then Alexander speaks in a role recall-
at 1.484, 506). The precedent of Antony and Cleopatra ing that of Dido’s dead husband Sychaeus, though the
has special significance, partly because it was still so latter does not make such an indignant appearance: he
infamous for a Roman audience, partly because Josephus and Dido reunite in the underworld at Aen. 6.473-74; at
may be evoking here the affair of Dido and Aeneas from 4.460-61, after Dido decorates a sanctuary in his honor,
the Aeneid, which was partly inspired by that fateful she seems to hear the voices and words of her husband
love. In classical literature eros is generally a destructive, calling; at 1.353-59 he tells her how he was murdered
tormenting force; this is clear also for Josephus’ Herod and how she can escape.
710
(1.436-444) and Antony (1.243, 359-60). In the Aeneid, See the note to “erotic state” at 2.115. But see the
Eros disguised as Ascanius/Iulus makes Dido fall in love notes to “Ioba” and following in 2.115: it is more likely,
with Aeneas (1.657); thus Dido eventually breaks her also given the absence of African evidence for Glaphyra,
oath to remain faithful to her first husband Sychaeus that she never lived with her husband in Mauretania.
711
(4.552: non servata fi des cineri promissa Sychaeo). She A paradoxical statement, since Glaphyra has
“marries” Aeneas, though he disavows the bond before reportedly married Archelaus after the Libyan’s death.
leaving her behind. Virgil (4.257) and Dido (4.314-321) Nevertheless, the Greek is a plain indicative imperfect,
both emphasize the “Libyan” locale of this marriage, and not subjunctive (“the Libyan marriage should have suf-
it is conceivable that Josephus links Juba with Libya in ficed for you”): the aggrieved and domineering husband
order to strengthen the evocation. seems to declare that one remarriage was enough, the
706
Greek ἀποπέµπω (as of Josephus’ own divorce at limit of her entitlement, though meaning that it should
Life 426); the parallel at Ant. 17.350 is stronger: “threw have sufficed. Alexander’s complaint might sound more
out” (ἐκβάλλω). It is uncertain whether Archelaus would reasonable if he (or Josephus) had known that Glaph-
have followed Judean or Roman divorce procedures, yra’s marriage to Juba had ended in divorce (see the
though in either case Josephus’ audience would presum- note to “expired” at 2.115), so that she might be por-
ably have understood this as an impetuous action by the trayed as willfully pursuing serial marriages. Others
ruler. On Roman divorce, see Rawson 1991 and Treggiari understandably translate with the subjunctive or condi-
1991: 435-82. tional perfect: “Le mariage africain aurait dû te suffire”
707
The identity of this Mariamme is uncertain. Kok- (Pelletier); “Ti sarebbe dovuto bastare il matrimonio in
kinos (1998: 264-65) makes a good case for Mariamme Africa” (Vitucci); “Die lybische Heirat hätte dir genügen
III-IV, the daughter of Aristobulus and Berenice (1.552), können” (M-B).
712
hence sister of Agrippa I. If that is correct (cf. Pelletier This is an unusual choice of verb (“to bend back,
205 n. 9, citing doubts of T. Reinach and A. Schalit), in a convex way,” ἀνακάµπτω), otherwise used in War
78 book two

you have chosen713—, you brazen woman!714 Except that I won’t stand by and watch the
outrage,715 but I’ll remove you even if you’re unwilling.”716 After recounting this dream
in detail,717 she lived barely two days.
Judea becomes (8.1) 117 The territory of Archelaus having been marked off for a province,718 Copo-
a province. Ant.
17.354

only to describe the topography of, and walls around, tus, regina, tuo de litore cessi (“I was unwilling, queen,
Jerusalem (5.133, 252, 505). Given the context, a sexual when I left your shore”). Suetonius appropriates this at
double entendre is conceivable. Tit. 7.2 to describe Titus and Berenice, when she must
713
Although Archelaus was Alexander’s step-brother leave Rome: he was unwilling and so was she (invitus
(see note to 2.114), a point that might weaken the ghost’s invitam). Josephus and Suetonius may be echoing the
case, for the purpose of levirate marriage it seems that same Virgilian resource concerning foreign royal women,
the status of brother was determined by common pater- given Josephus’ Roman context.
717
nity alone (see next note). Crucially, in any case, all the It is curious that Josephus gives the time from
language in 2.115 indicates that Archelaus’ desire was Glaphyra’s relating the dream, not —the more dramatic
the deciding factor in this marriage, not Glaphyra’s pro- course—from her experience of it, inviting the skeptic’s
miscuity. The incident highlights Josephus’ one-sided question, whether she recounted it and died years after
treatment of women’s alleged faithlessness (see notes to the dream itself (not his intention, of course). We may
2.121 below). see here a glimpse of the historian’s conscience: if she
714
Greek ὦ τολµηρά. See the note to “brazenness” died shortly after experiencing this dream, the author
at 2.108. Although Glaphyra is the only woman Jose- must explain how anyone could have known the con-
phus describes with this adjective, the τολµ- word group nection. He clarifies, but fails to put all the narrative
is basic to his vocabulary. One might read Alexander’s pieces together.
718
charge as accusing her, in effect, of behaving like a man. Or “as a province” (εἰς ἐπαρχίαν περιγραφείσης).
(Cf. Josephus’ description of Queen Alexandra at Ant. See also War 2.220: after the death of Agrippa I in 44
13.430-32.) For analysis of Josephus’ women, see Mayer- CE, Claudius would once again make the royal territories
Schärtel 1995; Ilan 1996; for women in War, Grünen- a province. Tacitus (Hist. 5.9) elides this period before
felder 2003: esp. 268-97. Agrippa I, claiming that Judea first became a prov-
715
Greek ὕβρις, a hallmark of tragedy in keeing with ince, after native-princely rule, under Claudius (ruled
War ’s tragic ethos (see Introduction), though here possi- 41-54 CE). The Antiquities parallel (17.355; 18.1-2)
bly a more prosaic “outrage.” Josephus does not explain claims, rather differently from War, that the territory
the specific outrage, except in creating the specter of an subject to Archelaus was now assigned, annexed, or
extremely jealous ghost. In Ant. 17.341, by contrast, he made an appendage to the existing province of Syria
specifies that Glaphyra’s marriage to Archelaus contra- (προσνεµηθείσης τῇ Σύρων . . . προσθήκην τῆς Συρίας
vened Judean (levirate) law, which prohibits marriage to γενοµένην). That is why, in Antiquities, the mandate of
the brother of a deceased man if there are children from the distinguished ex-consul Publilius Sulpicius Quirin-
that first union (Lev 18:16; 20:21), as there were in this ius (cos. ord. 12 BCE, CIL VI 17130), sent to govern
case—and the law requires such marriage if there are Syria as imperial legatus, included both liquidating the
not (Deut 25:5-6). Although the Bible does not qualify estate of Archelaus in Judea (17.355) and conducting a
“brother” status, the Talmud would later hold that men property census there—as throughout his entire province
born of the same father (irrespective of mothers) were (18.2). The census under Quirinius (famously connected
brothers for the purpose of levirate marriage (y. Yebam. with the birth of Jesus and Judas’ rebellion; Luke 2:1-2;
1:1 [2b]; b. Yebam. 17b; Midr. Tanh. to Deut 25:5—ref- Acts 5:37) seems to assume Judea’s incorporation into
erences owed to Martin Lockshin of York University), Syria. According to Ant. 18.2, Quirinius was accompa-
therefore not to marry the widow of a brother if he had nied and supported (συγκαταπέµπεται) by Coponius: an
fathered children with her. Although this analysis may equestrian (see following notes) with full authority over
have been in Josephus’ mind as he wrote War , he omits a subset of the larger command—the Judeans. The situa-
it entirely, presenting Alexander’s grievance rather as a tion as described in Antiquities thus precisely fulfills the
kind of male jealousy: his former wife has made herself hope of the Judean elders who went to Rome following
too available, now even with his own brother! Herod’s death in 4 BCE: they asked to be delivered from
716
In light of other parallels with the Aeneas-Dido kingship, to become instead a part of Syria (προσθήκην
story of the Aeneid (see previous notes), this might recall δὲ Συρίας γεγονότας) and subject to the Roman com-
Aeneas’ words to the shade of Dido at Aen. 6.460: invi- manders there (Ant. 17.314; cf. War 2.91).
book two 79

nius,719 a procurator720 from the equestrian order among the Romans,721 was sent.* He had

That Judea was joined to Syria in 6 CE, rather than rium): see Sherwin-White 1963: 11-12; Shatzman 1999:
being constituted an independent jurisdiction (so Ghiretti 53. All of the imperial territories governed by Caesar’s
1985), is suggested by a number of considerations, emissaries, whether senatorial legates or equestrians, or
including Tacitus’ evidence (above) and parallel cases indeed client kings and princes, were part of the same
in which prefects were sent to areas within provinces system. In this specific case, there may be little practical
that needed special attention (cf. Cotton 1999: 77-78 and difference between calling Judea a “province” with its
n. 14). Eck (2003: 98) compares the status of Noricum own procurator, answerable to the more senior neigh-
after its incorporation under Augustus (16 BCE) into the boring governor (as War ), and describing Judea as part
province of Illyricum-Pannonia, apparently also under an of the Syrian province with its own local, lower-level
equestrian prefect who reported to the senatorial gover- governor (as Antiquities), for all provinces were part of
nor of the larger province. Cf. Bernett 2007: 188-89. the emperor’s provincia. Still, questions remain about the
It is telling that even War, though making a differ- details of administration—the paths of taxation revenue
ent claim, seems to assume this situation in the follow- and administrative responsibility, for example. Condi-
ing narrative. Members of the Judean élite in War have tions may also have evolved over the first few decades
assumed all along that incorporation into the Roman of direct Roman rule.
provincial system would mean joining Syria (see 2.22, War’s omission of both the Syrian connection and
52, 80, 91 and notes—as in Ant. 17.314 above). In War Quirinius, though Josephus was obviously aware of
2, despite its presentation of the equestrian governors them, seems to confirm his wish to establish the incom-
as independent actors, the Syrian legate mysteriously petence of Roman administration in Judea as a primary
remains responsible for Judea (e.g., 2.185, 239-44, cause of rising tensions. By focusing on Judea as if it
333). This responsibility obtains not only when “seri- were a separate province, he can highlight the allegedly
ous disorder” threatens (pace Schürer-Vermes 1.361 n. unworthy equestrians—a point more easily made if he
36; Smallwood 1961: 267): the Syrian governors appear ignores their distinguished superiors in Syria.
719
consistently as overlords of Judea. During Petronius’ ten- This Coponius is unknown outside Josephus. His
ure as Syrian legate (ca. 37-40 CE; War 2.185-203), the Latin name has unfortunate connotations—an alternative
Judean prefects are not even named in War: he alone form of Cauponius: “tavern boy, waiter, or property of a
carries Gaius’ mandate to install the imperial statue in shop-keeper”—, though they support Josephus’ emphasis
Jerusalem’s temple. (NB: Antiquities’ references to the on the second-rate character of these governors . Even
Judean governors under Petronius are extremely vague the root name Caupo/Copo is attested only a few times,
and telling. Pilate’s replacement in 36/37 CE [Ant. chiefly in Africa (Kajanto 1982: 321).
720
18.89], one Marcellus, appears to have lain entirely Greek ἐπίτροπος means “administrator, [legal]
within the discretion of the Syrian legate Vitellius [“one guardian, custodian, agent”; it is also the standard rep-
of his friends”]. And the title of the man who appar- resentation of the Latin procurator. In the early first cen-
ently replaced Marcellus, Marullus—“commander of the tury CE, procurator (as an official designation) was used
cavalry” in Judea [Ant. 18.237]—tends to confirm the chiefly of the financial administrators—procuratores
auxiliary nature of the Judean prefecture.) Most curi- Augusti—who served in all provinces under higher-rank-
ously: although Josephus fails to mention the new Syr- ing proconsuls and imperial legates, but acted largely
ian legate Quirinius or his census here in War, he will independently, handling public revenue and expenditure.
twice refer incidentally to Quirinius’ role at the time of Under Claudius that they received a general broadening
Judas’ rebellion: War 2.433 (Judas rebelled “in Quirin- of their powers to include civil governance (cf. Taci-
ius’ [time]”) and 7.253 (Judas persuaded many Judeans tus, Ann. 12.60). Before Claudius, other men of eques-
not to support the census, “when Quirinius was sent as trian rank had been occasionally sent by the emperor
assessor to Judea”). In spite of its emphasis on Judea’s to govern provinces, or ethnic groups within them, that
governors, then, War itself tends to support Antiquities’ presented special problems (Mauretania, Noricum, Rae-
picture, in which Judea became part of Syria in 6 CE. tia, and most famously Egypt; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1.11;
This leaves open the question of Judea’s status in 44 CE cf. Strabo 17.3.25 on Augustus’ use of equestrians as
(cf. 2.220 below). governors); yet such men were designated “prefects”
The distinction in this difference fades somewhat, to (praefecti, Greek ἔπαρχοι)—an essentially military
be sure, when we recall that in Roman usage “province” title given also to many other prestigious positions
(provincia) was not a territory as much as the limits of a held by equestrians (see following note): cf. Sherwin-
Roman magistrate’s power-to-demand-obedience (impe- White 1963: 6; Schürer-Vermes 1.358-60; Brunt 1990:
80 book two

received from Caesar an authority that went as far as putting [people] to death.722 118 In

163-87. This titulature was strikingly confirmed in Judea the other terms all have nobler status-connotations (cf.
for Pontius Pilatus (19-37 CE?; see 2.169 below) by an Levick [2001: 48]: Claudius’ change of titulature from
inscription from coastal Caesarea, published in 1961, prefect to procurator “looks like a downgrading, likely to
which reads in relevant part [Pon]tius Pilatus [Praef] cause resentment”). In War , again, Josephus seems con-
ectus Iuda[ea]e. See Frova 1961; Feldman 1984: 318-20; cerned to stress the low character and status of Judea’s
Schürer-Vermes 1.358 n. 22; Boffo 1994: 217-233 (no. equestrian governors, in order to help explain the origins
25) for updated bibliography, a new critical edition, and of the conflict. In this he agrees with Tacitus, Hist. 5.9.
721
detailed commentary. For recent interpretations of the The Roman ordo equites was the distinctly lower
tiberieum structure bearing this inscription, see Alföldy of Rome’s two élite ranks, the other senatorial. Although
1999 (a rebuilt lighthouse-tower on the E side of the it had begun as a class of those wealthier men who could
harbor entrance) and Bernett 2007: 205-14 (a building provide their own horses for military service, by the early
for the cult of Tiberius, with a critical review of ear- principate the equestrian order had become a purely hon-
lier suggestions). All such proposals involve conjectural orary civic status, determined by a property qualification
reconstructions of the 5-7 missing letters before the “s” of 400,000 HS (cf. Horace, Ep. 1.1.58). Efforts either to
that precedes tiberieum. re-establish the order on a more illustrious basis (Pliny,
Since Coponius was apparently dispatched as a pre- Nat. 33.8) or to create an élite rank within it (alluded to
fect (praefectus, ἔπαρχος), Josephus’ nomenclature here in Tacitus, Ann. 11.4) were frustrated by the early emper-
seems incorrect, though the same problem is found in ors’ opening of the order to wealthier freedmen. See
Tacitus (e.g., Ann. 15.44 on Pilate). Perhaps they simply Pflaum 1950, 1960-61, 1982, with Millar 1963; Brunt
imposed the terminology of their own time on earlier 1990: 163-87.
governors. Or perhaps Judea’s early governors had both Josephus’ introduction of direct Roman rule in Judea
prefectural and procuratorial functions, and Claudius with the observation that this (mere) procurator and
merely began to insist on the procuratorial title only— equestrian was given the power to kill (see next note),
whether because he wanted to advertise the non-milita- sets the tone for the following story of mismanagement
rized state of the provinces or he wished to emphasize and cruelty by men unworthy of such office (e.g., 2.169,
the governors’ direct responsbility to him, rather than to 223, 247 [254-70], 273, 277). Equestrian prefects and
neighboring senatorial governors (Levick 2001: 48-49). procurators were not, as a class, of recognized character
At any rate, Josephus’ labels for the governors of and gravitas—in sharp contrast to the senatorial gover-
Judea are notoriously imprecise (e.g., Schürer-Vermes nors of Syria (see previous note and 2.75, 77, 192-203,
1.359): (a) ἐπίτροπος, of Coponius here [6-9 CE], Pilate 239-44, 280-81), a perspective with which Roman authors
[ 19-36/37 CE, War 2.169], Cuspius Fadus and Tibe- from the senatorial class would easily have agreed (Taci-
rius Alexander [44-48 CE, War 2.220], Cumanus [who tus, e.g. Ann. 14.32 [end], 33 [beginning]; Hist. 5.9).
received the ἐπιτροπήν, 48-52 CE, War 2.223], Felix Note the parallel at Ant. 17.355; 18.1, which belabors
[52-58/60 CE, War 2.247], Festus and implicitly Albi- the credentials of the Syrian legate Quirinius, who was
nus [ἐπιτροπή, 59?-64 CE, War 2.271-73], M. Antonius also in charge of Judea according to that text: a Roman
Iulianus [war-time governor, War 6.238], and gener- senator who had held all the offices up to the consulship,
ally for all governors to the outbreak of war [2.348]; extremely distinguished also in other (unnamed) ways.
(b) ἔπαρχος, of Albinus [in later reflections, War 6.303, On status issues in the appointment of governors, see
305], Annius Rufus and Valerius Gratus [12-18/19 CE, Lendon 1997: 222-24.
722
Ant. 18.33], Cuspius Fadus [Ant. 19.363], Festus implic- This verb (κτείνω) is often found in juridical
itly and Albinus [Ant. 20.197]; (c) other terms such as contexts, for both murder and judicial execution: Plato,
ἡγέομαι, ἡγεμών, προΐστημαι, ἐπιμελητής, of Coponius Euth. 4b; Prot. 322d; Leg. 871e; Lysias, Or. 10.11.
[Ant. 18.2], Pilate [Ant. 18.55], Marcellus and implicitly Josephus appears to be rendering a Latin phrase, famil-
Pilate [37 CE, Ant. 18.89], Felix [Ant. 20.137]. In all iar in his own (post-Claudian) time, for distinguishing
this, one pattern clearly emerges: at their first mention what modern scholars call praesidial procurators from
in War , Josephus invariably uses “procurator,” whereas more ordinary procurators, with financial and business
he never uses this term in Antiquities. Thus, when he responsibilities, viz.: procuratores Augusti holding the
mentions the governor a second time, whether this is ius gladii (cf. ILS 1368, 1372, 9200; Brunt 1983: 55-57;
later in War or (mainly) in Antiquities, he varies his lan- Levick 2001: 48). Cf. Ant. 18.2, where the same Copo-
guage. Although it does not seem to matter which term nius, though portrayed there as a junior associate of the
he substitutes for ἐπίτροπος in the later cases (hence, the Syrian legate Quirinius (see preceding notes), is sent “to
issue seems not to be a concern for technical precision), govern the Judeans with full authority.” Evidence from
book two 81

his [term]723 a certain Galilean man by the name of Ioudas724 incited the locals725 to rebel- Judas the
lion,726 lambasting them if they were going to put up with paying tribute to Romans727 Galilean, a
sophist. Ant.
18.9

Augustus’ time to the early 2nd century CE (e.g., Pliny, Sepphoris in Galilee after Herod’s death in 4 BCE (2.56),
Ep. 10.30) suggests that the power of capital punishment who is described as the son of a Galilean rebel named
was the prerogative of the proconsul or imperial legate, Ezekias killed in 47 BCE by the young Herod (1.204);
ordinarily a man of senior senatorial rank, as part of see the notes at 2.56. If that Judas became active again in
his imperium (Sherwin-White 1963: 3-6; Lintott 1993: Judea on Archelaus’ removal in 6 CE as “Judas the Gali-
65-69), and not normally subject to delegation. So this lean,” then we would have a rebel dynasty lasting well
point about the “procurator’s” powers would need clarifi- over a century. But Josephus, who seems keen to make
cation for a Roman audience. This authority held by the links among Judas’ descendants (possibly to concentrate
Judean prefect-procurator accords with that enjoyed by and marginalize rebel ideology), does not hint at such
the equestrian prefect of neighboring Egypt, though his a linkage. If Judas was active in 6 CE, 54 years after
position was in other respects unique (Sherwin-White his father’s (Ezekias’) death in 47 BCE, he must have
1963: 6-7). been at least in his late 50s, possibly older. Although
723
Contrast War 2.433, which connects the rebellion this is possible, it would render unlikely his fathering
with the Syrian governor Quirinius’ administration, and Menachem much later than 6 CE, and so would push
see the note to “province” at 2.117. the latter well into his 60s for his own rebel activities
724
This famous biblical-patriarchal and Hasmonean of 66 CE. If the two Judases are distinguished, and we
name (‫ )יהודה‬is the 4th most frequently attested for this understand Judas of Galilee in 6 CE to be in his 20s or
period. According to the partial parallel at Ant. 18.4 Judas 30s, then it is much easier to accommodate a rebel son
was “a Gaulanite man (or Golani) from a city by the Menachem in 66, at roughly the same age (if born ca.
name of Gamala.” Since, however, even the Antiquities 30-35 CE).
sequel (18.23; 20.102) reverts to “Judas the Galilean,” a For sustained analysis of Judas the Galilean’s follow-
tag attested also in Acts 5:37 and consistently in War (cf. ers and ideas, albeit somewhat positivistic and perhaps
also 2.433), this appears to be the name by which he was overly systematic, see Hengel 1989: 76-145, 325-43;
best known. In Ant. 18.4 Josephus may be claiming that, more recent and sensitive to historical-literary questions
although the man was known as “Judas the Galilean,” he is Jossa 2001: 63ff.
725
was actually from Gamala in the Golan. Gamala, to the E Or “people of the region” (ἐπιχωρίοι)—not Judas’
of lake Gennesaret, apparently always had close connec- fellow-Galileans or Golanites, presumably, since they
tions with Galilee, and Josephus’ portfolio as Galilean remained under the Herodian client rule of Antipas and
commander included, exceptionally, this natural fortress Philip and so had no reason to rebel at the imposition
across the lake (War 2.568; cf. Life 398; for Gamala, see of new taxes; Ant. 18.2-11 implies that Judas was active
Appendix A in BJP 9). For conjectures as to how the in Jerusalem.
726
Gaulanite Judas might have come to be known as “the Or “secession, defection” (ἀπόστασις); see note at
Galilean,” see Hengel 1989: 331 n. 100. 2.39. The ultimate goal was not rebellion, of course, but
In Josephus this Judas becomes patriarch of a rebel separation leading to independence.
727
dynasty, according to Ant. 18.9, 23 a “fourth philoso- Greek φόρος (any sort of financial exaction or
phy” (alongside Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes); cf. levy) usually refers in Josephus to tribute, paid by a sub-
Black 1974. In War, a Messianic pretender and leader ject state to a great power (e.g., War 1.154; 2.403; 7.218
of the later revolt in its earliest phase (d. 66 CE), named [of the post-war tax for Jupiter Capitolinus]; Ant. 10.155;
Manaem (Menachem), will be called a son of Judas 11.297; 12.158, 294). Jerusalem and Judea had been
(2.433)—though if he was active in rebellion 60 years placed under heavy tribute when Pompey subdued the
after his father, either he was rather old for this sort of country in 63 BCE (War 1.154; Ant. 14.74), the moment
thing or his father had been old at Menachem’s birth. Josephus also connects with the Judeans’ decsive loss of
Further, the famous Eleazar son of Ya‘ir, rebel leader freedom to the Romans (Ant. 14.77; War 2.356-57; 5.365,
of Masada (d. 73 CE), is portrayed by Josephus as both 396). The terms of the tribute are uncertain, though they
“a relative of Menachem” (2.447) and “a descendant of would have comprised at least produce taxes in kind and
Judas” (7.253). Ant. 20.102 adds that two of Judas’ sons, land taxes in money (Hengel 1989: 134-37). They were
named Simon and Jacob, were executed for rebellious apparently lightened by Julius Caesar as a favor, though
activity by Ti. Iulius Alexander when he was prefect of they still reportedly amounted to 25% of produce plus
Judea (46-48 CE). a tithe to the local rulers (Ant. 14.200-206; cf. Pucci
It is a further question whether this Judas is to be ben Zeev 1998: 85-88). It seems from the present pas-
identified with the one who led rebel activities around sage and other indicators that Herod and his sons had
82 book two

and tolerate mortal masters after God.728 This man was a sophist729 of his own peculiar
school,730 which had nothing in common with the others.731

not been required to furnish regular tribute payments sicarii (see 2.254-55) flee to Alexandria, where they per-
to Rome for Judea (but Ant. 17.308), though Appian suade many to undertake revolutionary activities, assert
(Bell. civ. 5.75.318-19) has Herod assessed some kind their independence (ἐλευθερία), to regard the Romans
of tribute (once only? To Antony alone?) for Idumea and as in no way superior to themselves, and to consider God
Samaria (Pastor 1997: 109-10). The Romans dealt with their sole master (θεὸν δὲ µόνον ἡγεῖσθαι δεσπότην).
client kings in a wide variety of ways, depending upon Josephus adds that no amount of torture could persuade
resources needed and diplomatic considerations (Braund them to call Caesar “master” (7.418-19). The centrality
1984: 63-66; Lintott 1993: 70-96). As one who enjoyed a of freedom as a watchword for the Judean rebels is con-
special relationship (as “friend and ally”) with the great firmed by Jerusalem coinage from the 2nd and 3rd years of
power, in any case, Herod more than fulfilled the expec- the revolt carrying the legend “freedom of Zion” (‫חרות‬
tation that he would assist the Romans in other tangible ‫)ציון‬: Meshorer 1982: 2.260-617. For proposals concern-
ways as needed (Richardson 1996: 229-34; Shatzman ing the theological dimensions of “freedom” as a rebel
1999: 81-82). slogan, see Hengel 1989: 90-145.
Judea’s direct incorporation into the provincial struc- Judas’ appeal for freedom, made explicit at Ant. 18.4,
ture following Archelaus’ removal brought with it a new 23, intersects with one of War ’s prominent themes: the
or restored financial levy, to be based on the census of work is in part a meditation on the meaning of freedom
property that Ant. 18.1-4, 26 describes. The collection (ἐλευθερία): see 2.22, 53, 80, 91 with notes. In Jose-
of this tribute appears to have been a special exercise phus’ presentation (e.g., Ant. 1.78), God’s mastery is
conducted by the nation’s leaders. In the early stages of basic to all Judean thinking. The question is what that
resistance against Rome (in protest at the governor Flo- means for practical government. Whereas the nation’s
rus), it will go unpaid; when King Agrippa II persuades élite since Hasmonean times have consistently sought
the leaders to resume payment they must undertake an “autonomy” in the context of foreign rule, Judas cham-
emergency collection throughout the Judean villages pions a bid for a more radical independence, of the kind
(2.403-5). When some Judeans then drive the king from that Josephus claims was irretrievably lost in Pompey’s
the city, Agrippa sends the leaders (apparently those who time (War 2.345, 355-57; 5.365, 395-96; Ant. 14.74).
had undertaken the emergency collection) to Florus in The rebels’ preoccupation with freedom appears often
Caesarea, so that he might appoint people to “exact the (2.264, 348, 361, 443; 4.95, 146, 228, 234, 245-46, 271;
tribute from the region” (2.407). This all suggests that 5.408; 7.255, 327, 334, 341, [344], 370, 372), though it
the tribute was assessed again (see above) as a percent- tends to be ironized by the narrator and by members of
age of agricultural production, payable at least partly in the élite, who suspect that the “tyrants” really wish to
kind, and that Judean officials were charged with con- enslave the nation to themselves (4.159, 175-77, 185,
veying it to the governor at Caesarea. The amount in 258, 347, 389, 510; 5.28); the aristocracy conceives
arrears at the time of the revolt was reportedly 40 talents of freedom largely in terms of security against local
(2.405), a modest sum in this context (see the note to tyrants. The slipperiness of “freedom” language was
“talents” at 2.50): it might have represented only that well known from the period after Alexander the Great,
fraction of the tribute that remained ungathered when in which each new conqueror promised Greek cities free-
the payment was halted. dom from his predecessor; it had been fully exploited by
Although Josephus treats it as self-evident that the the Romans themselves in Greece (Green 1990: 414-15;
imposition of tribute implied the loss of national free- Walbank 1992: 39, 43, 53, 93-94; Green 2007: xvii-xviii,
dom, or servitude (2.365, 368, 373-74), and hence might 33-34). For the opposition, as here, between freedom
predictably spark rebel activity, such as we find also in (ἐλευθερία) thus conceived and the payment of tribute
other provinces when tribute was imposed (Tacitus, Ann. (hence servitude) to Rome, see Agrippa’s speech below:
6.41; Dio 54.34.36; 56.18.13), biblical-Judean tradition 2.365, 368, 373-74.
had particular scruples about census-making, which The programmatic passage on government in Antiqui-
might also have played a role in Judas’ movement. See ties (6.31-44), like the earlier passages on autonomy in
2 Sam 24; Hos 2:1; 3 Macc 2.28-32, with Hengel 1989: War, connects political freedom with aristocratic gov-
120-34. ernment, and slavery with monarchy. In Ant. 6.38-39,
728
See further 2.433 on Judas’ appeal to God’s sole God tells Samuel that the people’s demand for a king
mastery, 7.323 on Eleazar son of Ya‘ir’s similar slogan, insults God because it is a rejection of his exclusive rule,
and especially War 7.410: surviving members of the whereas priestly aristocracy would have preserved God’s
book two 83

complete sovereignty (6.36-37). See also Apion 2.185, reserves αἵρεσις almost entirely for these groups; (b)
which idealizes the supremacy of divine rule through he typically portrays their interests (e.g., fate and free
priestly administration. If Josephus has a consistent will, the soul) and lifestyles in terms that the ancients
outlook on the matter, it seems to be that divine sov- considered philosophical; and (c) he uses more explicit
ereignty is fulfilled through priestly-aristocratic govern- philosophical language in these same contexts: the verb
ment; sometimes (as under Rome) foreign rule is useful φιλοσοφέω in 2.119, 166, and the noun φιλοσοφία in
in guarantee the national aristocracy’s freedom to govern, the parallel at Ant. 18.11, 23, 25 (a replacement for
over against native tyrants (cf. 5.256-57; a view partly αἵρεσις here). Although αἵρεσις has most often been
shared with Plutarch, Flam. 11.7); native monarchy and translated as “sect” (as in LCL for this passage), that
rebellion against the world power often go hand in hand, term should be avoided if it connotes aberrance or devi-
since rebel leaders typically assume messianic-royal pre- ance from a main body, since all the schools receive this
tensions; they are disastrous for the proper functioning of label. Although αἵρεσις is the word Josephus uses most
the aristocracy and so for the nation’s “freedom.” Notice, characteristically for the schools, he can substitute for
finally, the close parallels between War ’s elaboration of the sake of variety µοῖρα, µόριον, τάγµα, σύνταγµα,
freedom/autonomy and the discussion that Antiquities and γένος— as in 2.113 above of Essenes (see table in
(19.39, 54, 79, 100, 169, 182-83, 186, 233, 250, 261-63) Le Moyne 1972: 32).
731
locates in the Roman Senate following Gaius Caligula’s This fundamental difference between Judas’ way of
assassination in 41 CE. See Mason 2003a, 2008b. thinking and that of other Judean “schools” is program-
729
Josephus will continue to call both Judas (2.433) matic: it has to do with the problem of freedom (see
and his son Menachem (2.445) sophists (σοφισταί). This note to “God” in this section). Although the parallel in
is significant because he uses the word sparingly, reserv- Antiquities (18.4-9) emphasizes the novelty of Judas’
ing it with Platonic associations (cf. the Gorgias) for views even more than War, it adds the new claim that
teachers who incite the young to rebellious action: War his group was co-founded by a Pharisee named Saddok/
uses it otherwise only of the teachers who instructed Zadok (Ant. 18.9-10), and that his “philosophy” agrees
their disciples to topple Herod’s golden eagle (1.648, with the Pharisees except in its passionate desire (ἔρως—
650, 655, 656; 2.10; cf. Ant. 17.152, 155). The only other sarcastic language, perhaps) for freedom (ἐλευθερία). If
application in Josephus is to the anti-Judean writers of there is a contradiction, it is not between War and Antiq-
Egypt, who are “reprobate sophists, deceiving the young” uities, but between Ant. 18.4-9 and 18.9-10, 23.
(Apion 2.236). For the Greek background, see the notes Some scholars have argued that here in War Jose-
to Life 36-42 in BJP 9, on Justus of Tiberias: although phus “suppresses” the link between Pharisees and mili-
Josephus does not label him a sophist, his portrayal of tant freedom-seekers—on the assumption that he was
Justus fits the stereotype. In the parallel (Ant. 18.2-11, a Pharisee (Paret 1856: 818; R. Meyer 1965: 52 n. 4;
23-24), without using the word sophist he presents Judas 54-56; Black 1974: 50; Alon 1977: 44-46; Hengel 1989:
as the self-appointed head of a “philosophical school.” 86)—, whereas in Antiquities he relaxes his authorial
730
This is the first occurrence in Josephus of αἵρεσις grip and lets the truth of the connection slip out. Hans
with the meaning “philosophical school.” The word has a Rasp thought that Josephus wished to lend a new valid-
variety of senses, deriving from the active (αἱρέω, “take,” ity to Judas’ school in the Antiquities by linking them
therefore “taking, capture” of a town) and middle voices with his new-found Pharisaic friends, the Yavnean rabbis
(αἱρέοµαι, “choose,” therefore “choosing, choice”), but (1924: 39, 44, 47). But these theories appear unlikely in
it had also come to mean “the group with which one the absence of evidence that Josephus wished to identify
chooses to associate” (or “faction”) and specifically, in with the Pharisees, and in the face of abundant evidence
Hellenistic usage, “philosophical school” (of the Platonic that he preserved his authorial control through his last
Academy, Aristotelian Peripatos, Stoa, and so forth): writings, maintaining his distaste for rebel philosophy
Polybius 5.93.8; Diodorus 2.29; Cicero, Fam. 15.16.3; throughout (cf. Mason 1991: 282-85). The reverse case
Dionysius, Comp. 2; Diogenes Laertius 7.191 (on the is therefore more likely: by the time he composed the
title of a work by Chrysippus); Philo, Plant. 151 (and Antiquities-Life, which includes a number of hostile
Contempl. 129, of the Therapeutae). Josephus uses the reports about Pharisees (not least in his own career—
word 31 times, 13 of these for the Judean “philosophi- Life 189-98; cf. Ant. 13.288; 17.41-45), he was happy to
cal schools”: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as well forge a new rhetorical bond between the still-despicable
as—sarcastically—the rebel Judas’ followers (War 2.118, Judas and the Pharisees. If this connection were rhe-
122, 137, 142, 162; Ant. 13.171, 288, 293; 20.199; Life torical, it would be hazardous to build upon it historical
10, 12, 191, 197). The philosophical connotations of the constructions of radical Pharisaic wings or the like (pace
word here are clear from the following facts: (a) although Hengel 1989: 86-89).
Josephus has many words for “group” or “faction,” he
84 book two

EXCURSUS I: THE ESSENES OF JOSEPHUS’ WAR

Although its concentric structure highlights Phari- categories that cannot easily be applied to Josephus
sees and Sadducees at the beginning and end, the outside of this passage (thoughtless use of sources
following passage on the three Judean philosophical and “Hellenizing”), and still more it reverses nor-
schools (2.119-66) is dominated by the Essenes, mal historical method. For example, if we were
whose description consumes 43 of the 47 sections investigating the Pharisees we would first examine
(2.119-61). Before proceeding with the commentary, evidence for the Pharisees and construct a picture
it seems helpful to pause and consider the function of the group. Only afterwards would we consider
of this famous passage in Josephus’ work. This is evidence that does not identify itself as Pharisaic,
especially so because the standard treatments of but which might have some bearing on the group
War ’s Essenes begin from the assumption that the (such as Psalms of Solomon or Jubilees). To begin
people in question were the group(s) who produced by assuming that texts that do not identify them-
and cherished the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), found in selves as Pharisaic nevertheless represent the heart
the vicinity of Khirbet Qumran from 1947 onward.a of Pharisaism, and then interpret explicit evidence
Such studies therefore understand the meaning of for the Pharisees in light of them, would be to argue
Josephus’ text to be discernible only by comparison backwards. The same is true with any other histori-
with the DSS, in particular the Damascus Covenant cal phenomenon, and with the Essenes.
(CD) and Community Rule (1QS). Since that proce- This excursus introduces the following detailed
dure ignores literary-contextual clues to Josephus’ notes, which have to do with understanding War ’s
meaning (i.e., his own language and structures) Essenes contextually, by providing an overview of
along with historical-contextual ones (i.e., what his the passage and its context in Josephus. I briefly
Roman audiences could have gathered from his lan- consider some historical issues at the end. Excursus
guage), it conflicts with the interpretative principles II will do the same for King Agrippa II’s major
that underlie this commentary. speech (at 2.345), which has likewise usually been
In a DSS-based reading of Josephus’ Essenes, mined for other purposes, without much regard for
much of his own description must be sidelined Josephus’ context. As with everything in the com-
to accommodate the hypothesis. When he speaks mentary, these are offered not as last words but as
of constantly traveling Essene males, who refuse first words: doorways to help open up the text of
to stain their skin with cosmetic oil, whose only Josephus to fresh reading on its own terms.
leaders are democratically elected, who pray to the
sun—“God,” whose rays must not be offended—and Location and Structure
hold Greek-like views of the soul’s origin from the
ether as well as immortality, even though Josephus War’s Essene passage is bound securely to its
emphasizes and celebrates these traits, they must be context both fore and aft. The preceding material
dismissed either as misunderstandings, perhaps of (2.1-118) has highlighted the shortcomings of King
his sources, or as deliberate “Hellenizations” of the Herod’s heirs, whose bitter succession struggle ends
underlying apocalyptic-sectarian reality—at which with the egregious Archelaus as ethnarch of Judea,
he does not even hint. probationary to his possible appointment as king
Such a reading not only obscures Josephus’ should he prove worthy (2.93). Worthy he is not,
meaning in the Essene passage. It also invokes and he soon finds himself ignominiously exiled
to Gaul (2.111). Josephus passes from a detailed
account of the succession struggle to the exile with
a
E.g., M-B 1. nn. 30-85; Cross 1961: 70-106; hardly a word about the intervening decade. His
Black 1961: 25-47; Adam 1972; Vermes and Goodman interests are, as almost always, with moral ques-
1989; Beall 1988; Sanders 1992: 342-79; Grabbe 1992: tions. In his concluding remarks on Archelaus, he
2.494-95; Bergmeier 1993; Gray 1993: 82-110; Rajak has paused to describe the uncontrollable passion
1994; VanderKam 1994: 89. that drove the diadem-crazed prince to abandon his
book two 85

legitimate wife and “take for himself ” Glaphyra, As for structure: I noted that the passage begins
the widow of another son of Herod, Alexander, and ends with reference to the Pharisees and Sad-
and of the “Libyan” King Juba II (2.115). In that ducees (2.119, 162-66), though they are minor play-
story Josephus has further implied Glaphyra’s wan- ers. This is the first indication that Josephus gives
tonness, exposed by Alexander’s ghost (“You bra- this passage the same sort of concentric pattern
zen woman!”) in a dream that presages her death that governs each of his works as wholes. If we
(2.116). move one step in, we see that he begins and ends
It cannot be a coincidence that the Essene pas- his description of the Essenes by talking about
sage opens with sharp contrasts on all of these women, their trustworthiness, sexual relations, and
fronts. The first points that Josephus makes about succession (2.119-21, 160-61). Moving another step
the group have to do with their complete mastery in, he describes the Essenes with the rare nomen
of the passions, their full awareness of women’s agentis καταφρονητής: near the beginning and end
“wanton ways” and untrustworthiness, and their of the passage, they are “despisers” of the two great
lack of concern about any natural, personal suc- human motivators, wealth (2.122) and the terrors
cession (2.119-21). He goes on to emphasize their of death (2.151). Then we learn that they “make
community of goods, their opposition to marks it a point of honor” (ἐν καλῷ τίθενται)—another
of personal distinction (even everyday cosmetic rarely attested phrase—to avoid getting oil on their
practices), and their concern, when they achieve skin and to defer to their elders (2.123, 146; cf. Ant.
positions of leadership, not to outshine their fel- 19.299). Although that second reference prevents us
lows (2.122-23, 140). Josephus’ association of vice from imagining a rigid series of matching panels,
and the passions with women (as well as many the two corresponding discussions of Essene sun-
men) is typical of his larger narrative tendencies. reverence (2.128, 148) reinforce the pattern again.
One small but clear example is the phrase “wanton In this architecture, the central panel or fulcrum
ways of women” (ἀσελγείαι γυναικῶν), which is (2.139-42), which lies at the middle of the passage,
what the Essenes avoid by not marrying (2.121). comprises the twelve oaths taken by Essene initi-
The phrase is hardly found before his time,b but he ates. The pivotal function of this passage is sign-
uses it formulaically—of Herod’s wife Mariamme posted by the matching verbs “reckon in” (ἐγκρίνω)
(War 1.439), Jezebel (Ant. 8.318), Cleopatra (Ant. and “reckon out” (ἐκκρίνω), which sit as gateways
15.98), and certain transvestite Galilean Zealots in just before and after the oaths (2.138, 143)—and
Jerusalem during the war (War 4.562). appear only here in Josephus.
Near the end of the Essene passage, Josephus Because this concentric structure matches Jose-
gives greatest emphasis to the heroic endurance
phus’ tendencies in composing whole works—e.g.,
of these men, to the point of fearless death even
War features the Leontopolis temple at the begin-
under torture (2.151-58). This prepares, in both
ning and end (1.31-33, explicitly looking ahead to
general theme and specific language, for examples
7.421-36), and works toward the fulcrum story of
of Judean endurance in defense of the laws, on the
the murder of Ananus and Jesus (4.300-54)—its
part of the populace as a whole, in the narrative
presence here suggests at least two things. First, the
soon to follow: under Pontius Pilate (2.169-77)
passage is Josephus’ deliberate and artful construc-
and then in the face of Gaius Caligula’s demand
tion (see further on sources, below). Second, the
that his colossal statue be installed in Jerusalem’s
Essenes are of considerable importance to War .
temple (2.184-205). Although the Essenes adopt
a peculiarly disciplined lifestyle, therefore, this is
only the embodiment of Judean virtue in a concen- Prominent Themes and Relation to Josephus’ Work
trated form.
The importance of the Essene passage for Josephus’
literary aims is borne out by the concentration of
b charged, thematic language within it. The ethos
Philo, Mos. 1.305; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2.56;
and fragments of some astrological writers. Otherwise, of War has to do with Judean manliness and mar-
wantonness was often attributed to men under the tial virtue: Josephus’ most explicit aim in writing
influence of drink and women (Polybius 10.38.2; (though there are many others) is to redeem his
25.3.7). people’s reputation after their recent defeat, which
86 book two

has led to constant belittling and humiliation (cf. trait of the Spartans, and said to be the whole focus
1.1-12, esp. 1.7). As he now comes to describe of their training,c emulated also by philosophers.d
an all-male order of philosophers, which excludes (We must remember that ancient philosophy was
women (aside from the endnote at 2.160-61) and largely concerned with practical training in tough-
practices an extraordinary regimen of discipline and ness.) This is an important word group for Josephus,
hard-core toughness, he takes the opportunity to who uses it about 134 times, nearly half of these
press home those values. It appears that the Essenes (63) in War —usually in relation to the endurance
are already known and admired (they are the only of the Judean fighters or the “steadfastness” of their
school mentioned by contemporary authors outside defenses. In the Apion, again, he makes endurance
of Judea: Philo, Pliny, and Dio; see below), and a distinctive Judean trait (1.182; 2.146, 170, [225],
Josephus will take full advantage of this reputation 228, 273, 284). Three times (Apion 2.225, 228,
to enhance his image of Judeans. 273) he contrasts the Spartans’ mere reputation
Hence, the passage is filled with the language of for endurance with the undeniable Judean display
martial order: τάγμα, προστάσσω, τάξις, εὐταξία, of this virtue in the recent war—much as in the
ἄσκησις, and δίαιτα. Only in War does Josephus Essene passage.
call the Essenes a τάγμα, the term he normally uses I have mentioned Josephus’ insistence that the
for a Roman legion—by far the most common use Essenes were “despisers” of both wealth and death:
in War , where it appears 128 times. Although he the latter issue provides the climax of the Essene
calls all the schools by various names (ἅιρεσις, passage, which receives more space than any other
φιλοσοφία, μοῖρα, etc.), he uses τάγμα of the issue (2.151-58), though scholars tend to ignore it.
Essenes 5 times in this passage, and once of the “Contempt for death” (θανάτου καταφόνησις or
Sadducees immediately afterward (2.122, 125, 143, περιφρόνησις), the subject of countless moral-phil-
160, 161). Although he has the phrase ἐν τάξει osophical discussions, including an epistle by Jose-
(“in order”) only four times in all his writings, phus’ older contemporary Seneca (Ep. 24—there,
two of these are near each other in this Essene contemno mortem), was regarded as the acid test of
passage (2.130, 133): the Essenes do things in an an ancient philosophy. One could teach any high-
orderly way. Josephus claims that they only take sounding principles, but it was only the ability of
action when ordered to do so, using the cognates those teachings to enable the practitioner to face
προστάσσω and ἐπίταγμα (2.134, 139). Other con- pain and death with perfect equanimity that proved
spicuous terms related to martial virtues are δίαιτα their efficacy (cf. Warren 2004).e
(“regimen”)—five of War ’s eleven occurrences are The collocation of καταφρόνησις or περιφρόνη-
in this passage—, and ἄσκησις or ἀσκέω (“disci- σις (“disdain, contempt”) with θάνατος or τὰ
pline,” “training”: 2.119, 150, 166 [cf. Ant. 1.6 and δεινά (“death, terrors”) is well attested in histori-
Apion 2.192, where Josephus claims that Moses ans and moral philosophers of the Roman period,
perfected training in virtue, ἄσκησις ἀρετῆς]). but the author with the biggest investment is Jose-
Since this usage is only in War, and not in the phus. For him, disdain for terrors or death is a
Essene passages of Antiquities, it seems clear that
Josephus has shaped his account to fit War ’s overall
martial outlook.
At War 2.138 Josephus remarks that endurance c
Xenophon, Ages. 5.3; 10.1; 11.9; Plutarch, Mor.
(καρτερία) was the criterion of the tough Essene [Apoph. lac.] 208c, 210a, 237a; Lyc. 2.2; 16.5-6; 18.1;
initiation. Then in 2.151-53 he gives a vivid portrait 29.5; Ages. 11.7; 30.3.
d
of the results. Exhibiting a genuine contempt for Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.1; 2.1.20; 3.1.6.
e
death, during the recent war Essenes endured every Of countless examples: Diodorus 5.29.2; 15.86.3;
kind of torture, in the course of which they “smiled 17.43.6, 107.6; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.46.4; Philo, Prob.
30; Abr. 183; Musonius Rufus, Diss. 10; Epictetus in
in their agonies.” As the commentary shows, that
Arrian, Diatr. 4.1.70, 71; Plutarch, Brut. 12.2; Lucian,
whole section on toughness under torture has strong Peregr. 13, 23, 33; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 4.50.1; 9.3.1;
verbal associations with the Hasmonean narratives 12.34.1; Polyaenus, Strat. 5.14.1; Diogenes Laertius 1.6;
of 2 and 4 Maccabees, and it reinforces the tone Phalaris, Ep. 103.3; Appian, Celt. 1.9; Bell. civ. 5.4.36;
of manly courage. Endurance was the most famous Dio 43.38.1; 46.26.2, 28.5; 62.25.1.
book two 87

distinctive and conspicuous Judean trait. War has Just as concord, an Essene hallmark (War 2.122-23,
introduced the theme with Athrongeus, the rebel 134, 145), becomes a national characteristic in the
of 4 BCE (2.60), otherwise a less than admirable Apion, so also the solemnity, gravity, or serious-
figure. Thereafter it becomes the chief character- ness (Greek σεμνότης) that Josephus there identi-
istic of all Judean fighters (3.357, 475; 5.88, 458; fies as the outstanding Judean trait (Apion 1.225;
6.42; 7.406), even those whom Josephus opposes 2.223), which is most conspicuously exhibited by
politically, which the Roman generals can only his good self (Life 258),f provides the first point
try to inculcate in the storied but often unimpres- he will make about the Essenes here in War : they
sive legions (6.33). Throughout Antiquities too certainly are known for cultivating seriousness (War
Josephus features this Judean quality, beginning 2.119). In Apion 2.193-96, 199-202, 205, likewise,
with an encomium on King Saul (Ant. 6.344-47). Josephus attributes other Essene characteristics—
There we meet the only other example in Josephus simplicity of life and an insistence that marital sex
of the agent-noun καταφρονητής: other would-be be exclusively for procreation, not for pleasure (cf.
“despisers of terrors,” he declares, should learn War 2.160-61)—to all Judeans. Even the Essenes’
from Saul’s manly example. Most compelling are investigations into the curative properties of roots
Josephus’ remarks in the Apion: the Judean consti- and stones (2.136) reveal close verbal parallels to
tution itself inculcates contempt for death (θανάτου his description of King Solomon’s inquiries, the
περιφρόνησις), among other virtues (Apion 2.146), records from which continue to provide Judeans
and precisely in wartime Judeans despise death with effective means of healing and exorcism (Ant.
(θανάτου καταφρονεῖν, 2.294). Again, Josephus’ 8.44-49; cf. War 7.185).
description of the Essenes embodies his vision of
Judean culture. Language and Possible Sources
This connection may be seen most efficiently
by comparing the Essene passage with summary This consideration of Josephus’ language and domi-
paragraphs from the final section of the Apion, nant themes in the Essene passage already indicates
where Josephus describes the dominant character- that it is his creation. Even if we ignored his claim
istics of his people. For example, he introduces his to have studied with each school in his youth (Life
“non-panegyric” on Judean culture (Apion 2.145- 10-12), his descriptions of Essenes in Jerusalem
46): and throughout Judea’s towns would have meant
that he knew enough about them (as of the Phari-
For I think it will become clear that we have laws
sees and Sadducees) to portray them on the basis
optimally oriented towards piety (εὐσέβεια), to-
wards community (κοινωνία) with one another, and
of personal knowledge. It has often been argued,
towards humanity (φιλανθρωπία) among the world however, that he borrowed much or most of his
at large; yet further, towards justice (διακαιοσύνη), Essene material from other sources. That proposal
towards endurance in the course of struggles (ἡ ἐν has at least two consequences. First, it explains, to
τοῖς πόνοις καρτερία), and towards contempt for the satisfaction of many advocates of the Qumran-
death (θανάτου περιφρόνησιν). Essene hypothesis, how he could so completely
misrepresent the group—assuming that they are
Or again, Apion 2.293-94: accurately represented by the DSS (cf. Bergmeier
What greater beauty than inviolable piety (εὐσέβεια)? 1993: 9). Second, the notion that Josephus relied on
What greater justice (δικαιότερον) than obedience sources for the Essenes explains to some scholars
to the laws? What more beneficial than to be in con- why he says so little about the period from 6 to
cord with one another (πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμονεῖν), 41 CE, but so much about the Essenes. Lacking
to be prey neither to disunion (διίσασθαι) in ad- sources for the early Roman governors, they reason,
versity, nor to arrogance (ὑβρίζοντας) and faction he chose to fill the space with what he did have:
(στασιάζειν) in prosperity; in war to hold death
source material for the Essenes.
in contempt (θανάτου καταφρονεῖν); in peace to
devote oneself to crafts or agriculture (τέχναις
ἤ γεωργίαις); and to be convinced that everything
f
in the whole universe (πάντα δὲ καὶ πανταχοῦ) is Cf. War 7.65 on Vespasian; Ant. 12.24 on the Tobiad
under the eye and direction of God? Joseph.
88 book two

The second position stems from an old but long The most famous case for relieving Josephus
since discredited view of Josephus’ method of of responsibility for this passage was made inde-
writing: that he was not so much an author as a pendently by Matthew Black (1956) and Morton
rather incompetent anthologist, who simply strung Smith (1958), who proposed that the same source
together whatever sources he could find to create on the Essenes was taken over by Josephus in War
the illusion of a narrative. Although that theory (with only small adjustments) and by the early
dominated the field in the late 19th and early 20th third-century Christian, Hippolytus of Rome, in his
centuries, it was put to rest in principle by the work Refutation of All Heresies (9.18.26-29). Although
of R. Laqueur (1920), which showed that sources the older and natural assumption had been that
could not account for the literary traits of Josephus’ Hippolytus used Josephus, Black argued that sig-
narratives, even where he gave completely different nificant non-Josephan features of Hippolytus could
versions of the same events, for his own life story not easily be explained as the latter’s elaborations
(not from sources) was the clearest example of that of Josephus, and further that Hippolytus seemed
versatility. The literary dimensions of his work must more “Jewish” (i.e., closer to rabbinic themes) than
come from him. Josephus. Smith argued that whereas Hippolytus
This point, which has since been confirmed normally quotes verbatim, he does not show such
in countless ways, especially with the aid of the a relationship with Josephus’ text here, and there
Concordance (completed in 1983) and electronic is no other evidence that he knew Josephus. If
tools for literary analysis, means that sources do Hippolytus has strikingly similar material on the
not mechanically dictate what Josephus includes Essenes, but did not get it from Josephus, the only
and excludes. For example, he clearly had much explanation seemed to be a common source.
more source material available for his Herodian That hypothesis was overturned by Christoph
Burchard’s much fuller analysis of both Hippolytus
and Hasmonean histories in War 1 than he chose
and Josephus (1977). Burchard showed that this
to use: that narrative (as much of War 2) appears
section of the Refutatio is replete with Hippolytus’
to be a condensed version of something larger.
distinctive language and themes. Further, Hippoly-
The careful structuring of the narrative, the unified
tus often replicates characteristic Josephan phrases
pitch and tone of War ’s language and sentence con-
and style, betraying his dependence. Burchard con-
struction, and the presence throughout of Josephus’
cluded that War 2.119-61 must be the main source
charged vocabulary—all amply illustrated in this for Hippolytus’ description of the Essenes, in which
commentary—show that he crafted the narrative case there is no reason to posit an Essene source
and placed material where he wished. His knowl- behind War .g
edge of the past, whether empirical or traditional, The issue was not settled, however, because
or some kind of source material was a necessary Burchard left unaddressed some of the original
condition for his production of narrative that was insights of Black and Smith. A. I. Baumgarten
not freely invented; it was not, however, a condition (1984) therefore proposed a different approach.
sufficient to explain what he included and excluded. Shifting his attention to Hippolytus’ treatment of
The artful interweaving of Archelaus’ quest for the Pharisees, rather than the Essenes, in the same
the diadem with the revolt of 4 BCE, in which passage, he showed that there was something to the
other unworthy men wrapped diadems on their “more Jewish” flavor of the later work, in the form
heads or presented themselves as Herod’s sons (2.1- of a clearly more pro-Pharisaic presentation than
111), suggests his own deep interest in questions of Josephus gives, which could not easily be attributed
constitution, kingship, and tyranny, which will be to Christian outlooks in the early third century. His
fully developed in Antiquities. Josephus chose his own solution took up an option that Smith, Black,
themes, topics, and structures. Here he could have and Burchard had overlooked, which arises because
given more proportional representation to all three of the long interval between Josephus and Hip-
schools (cf. Ant. 18.12-22), but he chose instead to polytus: the Christian teacher’s account must ulti-
give the Essenes the lion’s share.
We have seen that the Essene passage shows
many hallmarks of Josephus’ own authorial hand. g
Smith reportedly later retracted his proposal under
Did he, nonetheless, derive it ultimately from other the influence of Shaye Cohen (Bergmeier 1993: 23 n.
sources? 9).
book two 89

mately come from Josephus (so Burchard), but not form of the name and the “school” passages (it is
by direct borrowing (so Black and Smith). Rather, used also at 5.145; Ant. 13.298; 15.372). Rather,
another writer must have revised Josephus’ account the distinction appears to be as follows. Josephus
(in a pro-Pharisaic direction, among other things), always uses Ἐσσηνοί in the plural, never in the
and it was this revised version of Josephus that Hip- singular. Conversely, with one telling exception,
polytus used. In any case, this route to identifying he always uses Ἐσσαῖος in the singular, of an
Josephus’ sources may now be considered closed. individual named Essene. The telling exception is at
More recently, Roland Bergmeier (1993) has Ant. 15.371-78, where he reports that “those called
written a book on “the Essene-portrayals in Flavius Ἐσσαῖοι among us” were excused from the oath of
Josephus” that is entirely devoted to the ingenious loyalty to Herod—but then returns to calling them
reconstruction of Josephus’ putative sources. After Ἐσσηνοί. It seems, then, that in using the Ἐσσηνοί
observing that the DSS have intruded far too much form Josephus is accommodating his audience.
into the interpretation of Josephus’ Essenes, instead They are used to hearing this name for the group
of turning to the narratives themselves he tries to (cf. Pliny’s Esseni at Nat. 5.73, and Synesius, Dio
understand each of Josephus’ putative sources in its 3.2). His explanation that Judeans prefer Ἐσσαῖοι
own right (1993: 51-52). accords with both Philo’s consistent employment
Noting the two different forms of the name of that form and his own use of Ἐσσαῖος for
“Essene” in Josephus, to begin with, Bergmeier individuals. That is: where there is no established
proposes that most of the Ἐσσαῖος “anecdotes” euphony, in the singular, he defaults to the native
have a decidedly non-Jewish coloring and therefore form.
mostly come from Nicolaus of Damascus (1993: (b) When Bergmeier comes to Josephus’ descrip-
17-18, 21)—the deus ex machina of older source tion of the first two Essene oaths (2.139)—that they
criticism. By contrast, the Ἐσσηνός passages and will show piety towards the Deity (εὐσεβέω τὸ
one Ἐσσαῖος story must come from three other θεῖον) and maintain justice behavior towards human-
sources now intermingled in Josephus, namely: a ity (τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους δίκαια φυλάξειν)—he
Stoicizing “three-school” source in the doxographi- pursues at some length a strained parallel with
cal tradition; a Hellenistic-Jewish source represent- Philo, and then early Christian literature, in order
ing the themes and speech habits of Alexandrian to establish that this must come from the alleged
Jewry, from which Philo and Josephus indepen- Alexandrian-Jewish source (1993: 36-37). But this
dently drew; and another source that understood pair of complementary virtues is absolutely charac-
the Essenes as Jewish Pythagoreans, which influ- teristic of Josephus elsewhere, turning up routinely
enced both Pliny on the Essenes and Philo in his from his portraits of the righteous Judean kings to
description of the Therapeutae (1993: 48). Berg- his presentation of John the Baptist.h The pair is
meier imagines Josephus constantly moving back also found widely throughout the Greek moral phi-
and forth, meticulously but slavishly combining losophers from Plato onward.i There is no reason to
these sources. Phrases that sound more Stoic or doubt that Josephus has composed this passage.
Pythagorean or Alexandrian-Jewish flag the transi- (c) In his final chapter, Bergmeier identifies 51
tion to a new source (1993: e.g. 67, 92-93). For hapax legomena in War 2.119-61 as indices to
example, the repetition of “Judeans” in 2.119, or Josephus’ use of sources (1993: 108-9). Yet there
“Greeks” in 2.155-56, creates doublets that must are several problems with using uniquely occurring
signify a change of hand (1993: 63). words in a mechanical way to argue for the pres-
The considerations raised above, on read- ence of sources.
ing Josephus in narrative context, combined with First, the logic involved in using such words
the following commentary notes, raise problems as evidence of a different authorial hand runs
for this conception of Josephus’ approach to his as follows. Given that each writer favors certain
work. Three further points may suffice by way of vocabulary, if we analyze a text and find high con-
response.
(a) Bergmeier’s basic proposal that Josephus’
two names for Essenes (Ἐσσαῖος, Ἐσσηνός) pro- h
Ant. 7.338, 341, 356, 374, 384; 8.280; 9.16, 236;
vide a criterion for source distinctions (1993: 13, 12.43, 56; 18.117 (cf. Apion 2.145-48, 170-71, 291).
24) does not match the evidence. He connects i
Plato, Phileb. 39e 10; Euthyphr. 12e 6; Gorg. 507b
the ν-form with his “three-school source” (1993: [τὰ δίκαια καὶ ὅσια]; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.2.2; 8.8.1;
56), though there is no correlation between the 8.28.3; 8.62.3; 9.44.8 etc. See the notes at 2.139.
90 book two

centrations of language not found elsewhere in this little occasion to use most of these words elsewhere
author, but which is likely to have characterized in a political-military history.
another author, it might mean that the author under Finally, arguing from hapax legomena raises an
investigation has borrowed material. The problem obvious problem: What about dis and tris legomena?
is that much of Josephus’ unusual vocabulary in If the unique appearance of a word in one passage
the Essene passage does not suit this logic, for it is suggests that it comes from a source, what shall we
either barely attested in ancient Greek literature or it say when a word appears in the Essene passage and
is hardly attested before his time and becomes more only once or twice elsewhere in Josephus? Exam-
common from his time onward. The latter is a trait ples: ὑπεροψία (War 2.120; 3.320); ἐντυπόω (War
of much of War ’s language, which rides the crest of 2.120; Ant. 12.68, 72); καταφρονηταί (War 2.122,
the new forms characteristic of the Second Sophis- 151; Ant. 6.347); ἀλείφω (War 2.123; 5.565; Ant.
tic. But in such cases it becomes highly unlikely 6.165); ἔκτοπος (War 2.136; 4.319); and καθεκτ-
that the unusual language results from borrowing. words (-ος, War 2.12; -εον, War 5.20; -ικος, War
For example, Josephus calls the little shovel 2.135). We cannot say that the source is responsible
given to Essene initiates by three names: σκαλίς, for the word in the Essene passage and the other
ἀξινίδιον, and ξινάριον (2.137, 148). All three occurrence or two. Given that War is written in a
words, though perfectly intelligible to Greek speak- very artful style, there seems to be no basis for
ers, are unattested before his time, and the second concluding that rare words indicate sources.
one appears only here before the 10th century. Simi- It was in part the familiar problems with using
larly, his clever term for “neophyte,” νεοσύστατος, hapax legomena to determine authorship that gave
is not found before him. Is it reasonable to attribute rise to the use of stylometric analysis for this pur-
such words to a source, on the ground that they were pose. In stylometric analysis, one examines the
likely characteristic of another writer’s speech? The frequency of such incidental function-words as
case of the hatchet also highlights Josephus’ typical particles and conjunctions, as better indicators of
concern for varying his diction. Similarly, when he habitual style than deliberately chosen diction, tal-
describes the Essenes “digging” a hole for defeca- lying their frequency against both control texts
tion (ὀρύσσω) and then filling back the hole that from the same author and sample blocks from other
had been “excavated” (with ἀνορύσσω), it would authors. Because of natural variations in an author’s
be odd to imagine that the best explanation of the writing patterns, the critic requires massive cumula-
compounded form, simply because it occurs only tive odds against mere coincidence (say, more than
here, is his borrowing from a source. 1,000,000:1) to challenge authorship of a given text
Second, it is hardly surprising that the Essene or section (Williams 1992: 1-22). D. S. Williams
passage, which deals with subjects completely dif- has performed such an analysis on War 2.119-61
ferent from those of War as a whole, should have and found it entirely consistent with Josephus’
a relatively high concentration of unique words. authorial habits across the breadth of his corpus,
War is a narrative of political and military history, in marked contrast to the habits of several ancient
whereas the Essene passage is a lengthy excursus authors, including Nicolaus (Williams 1994). What-
on a tightly knit philosophical school, and the only ever the shortcomings of stylometry, it seems a
one of this kind. Most of the unique terms identi- more refined tool than simple lexical studies for
fied by Bergmeier thus refer to: sectarian boundary identifying distinct authorship, inasmuch as it does
markers (admit, eject, outsiders, condescending to not depend on data that might result from changes
eat [grass, if expelled], neophytes); special phil- of subject or deliberate variation. It supports the
osophical-school traits (dress, being trained, wear otherwise probable conclusion that Josephus wrote
white, exchange, return item, school member, refec- War 2.119-61 as we have it, whether or not he also
tory, pray beforehand, wrap around [mantle], the- used sources.
ologize, wise saying, inculcate); unique implements
of this school (different words for the small hatchet, Other Accounts of the Essenes
loincloth), and their remarkably ethical practices,
described in an attempt at sublimity (sobriety, mas- Once we have confirmed that Josephus wrote War ’s
ters [of temper], servants [of peace], medicinal Essene passage as it stands, that it was he who
roots, extreme long life). Obviously, Josephus has decided to feature the Essenes at disproportionate
book two 91

length as standard-bearers for the nation’s virtues,j there shares the obfuscatory style of Ant. 17-19 in
and that they play a significant role in War ’s nar- general, and in addition is plagued by textual vari-
rative as models of manly fortitude and courage, ants and grammatical uncertainties.
it remains to consider the problem of the histori- Otherwise, Josephus claims to have studied with
cal reality behind Josephus’ descriptions. Standard the Essenes, as with the other schools, in his youth
method requires that the historian gather all con- (Life 10-12). His narratives mention individual Ess-
temporary evidence bearing on the phenomenon in enes relatively often (see above), usually in con-
question, try to understand it in its own right, and nection with their teaching students and foretelling
then test hypotheses to find the one that will best the future, in and around Jerusalem (War 1.78-80;
explain the evidence. Although we lack the space 2.112-13; Ant. 13.311; 15.371-78; 17.346), an abil-
here for such analysis, a brief survey seems nec- ity attributed to them also in the following passage
essary because of the strange neglect of standard (2.159). And a figure named John the Essaeus—the
method in this case. Of the four contemporary same word as for individual Essenes—becomes a
sources for Essenes, by far the most important— commander in the revolt against Rome, appointed
because they reflect pre-70 realities and offer rel- at the same time as Josephus (War 2.567; 3.11, 19).
atively extensive coverage—are the accounts in On the debated significance of his epithet—whether
Josephus and Philo. he should be understood as an Essene, or as a man
Outside of the present passage, Josephus men- from Essa, or indeed whether all “Essenes” have
tions Essenes relatively often. At Ant. 13.171-73 he a connection with Essa—please see the relevant
will place them on a spectrum with Pharisees and commentary notes.
Sadducees according to each school’s view of fate Like Josephus, but a generation earlier and so
and free will. Ant. 18.18-22 is the counterpart in independently, Philo seizes upon the Essenes of
the later work to this passage. As he does routinely Palestine-Syria as model philosophers. His early
in parallel narratives, he changes things consider- work, Every Good Man is Free, was the counter-
ably in the later version. Although that passage is part to a lost treatise, Every Bad Man is a Slave.
much more proportionate in relation to his portraits Although the theme of internal freedom was made
of Pharisees and Sadducees (18.12-17) than this famous by Stoics, who characteristically argued
one, the Essenes still receive the largest amount of that the good man can never be compelled to act
space there; they appear as peerless philosophers, because he will happily face death first (cf. Prob.
unmatched by Greeks or barbarians. Along with his 23-25), the Platonist Philo casts this as common
repeated emphasis on their community of goods, philosophical property, recognized by all wise men
celibacy—emphatically: there is no mention of (Prob. 2-7). When he reaches the proof (probatio)
marrying Essenes now—and ordered life, Josephus stage of his discourse on the subject, after sur-
adds that they number about 4,000 men; they do not veying other examples—Magi and Indian gym-
own slaves; and they are committed to agriculture.k nosophists, in addition to Greeks—he turns to
Most interesting is a comment on Essene sacrifice, Judea’s Essenes (Prob. 75-91). As in Josephus, the
which seems to say that when they bring their vic- emphasis throughout this essay is on toughness and
tims to the temple they are excluded from offering endurance, getting beyond the fear of both death
them in the common (priestly?) court, but make and poverty or disrepute (Prob. 23). The clearest
their sacrifices according to distinctive prescrip- examples of freedom will be those who faced tor-
tions (18.18). Unfortunately, Josephus’ language ture with no loss of composure and resolve (Prob.
106-9).
Giving the Essenes’ number as about 4,000,
j
Perhaps it needs emphasizing that when I speak of Philo locates them in the villages of Judea (avoid-
Josephus’ Vorliebe for the Essenes, which is deducible ing the moral disease of cities), and stresses their
from the location, amplitude, structure, and themes of absolute equality, community of goods, lack of
War ’s Essene passage, I am of course not speaking about
slaves or hierarchy (cf. Josephus’ emphasis on elec-
the man Josephus’ emotions or psyche, to which we have
no access. We can speak only of what literary critics
tion of leaders), attention to agriculture and crafts,
call the “implied author” and the literary impression of
his work.
k
In War they engage in various “crafts” (2.129). It is they engage in “crafts and agriculture” (Apion 2.294)—a
striking that Josephus will say of Judeans generally that sign of their simplicity of life.
92 book two

avoidance of trade or the manufacture of anything them here, the answer is not difficult to imagine. He
that could be used for immoral purposes, special usually mentions groups only if they are remarkable
attention to the sabbath as a time of study in vir- in some way, and these—whom he admires and
tue, and shared accommodations and meals. Philo his audience might already know in some way—
places particular emphasis on the great age of this he must fit into the description of Judea. Since he
school, which has seen various tyrannical rulers has so far been rattling off specific cities and other
come and go in Judea, none of whom has been sites, it is not clear where he could have mentioned
able to tarnish the name of the Essenes (which he the Essenes even if he shared the understanding of
takes to mean “holy” by Greek derivation), who are Philo and Josephus that they were widely dispersed
perfect examples of free men. in Judea. Having essentially drawn a circle around
Another work of Philo’s that has not survived Palestine from west to north to east, he mentions
intact, called the Apology or Hypothetica, and them here before closing his description of the
copiously quoted by the fourth-century CE Euse- region:
bius in his Preparation for the Gospel (Praep. ev. “To the west [of Lake Asphaltitis], the Essenes
8.11.379a-81a), also featured the Essenes. (After completely shun the shores, which cause harm (ab
citing this work, Eusebius goes on to quote the occidente litora Esseni fugiunt usque qua nocent):
passage just considered from Every Good Man is a solitary tribe, wonderful beyond all others in the
Free.) Eusebius’ quoted material again mentions world, being without any women and renouncing all
the wide dispersal of Essenes in Judea (here: vil- sexual desire, without money, and with only palm
lages and cities, in large and populous groups). trees as companions. Each day their associates are
New emphases are the maturity of these men, who replenished from an equal number, tired of life,
labor at their agriculture and crafts in heat and cold whom fortune with its vicissitudes [or: in waves]
without complaint, details of their communal life, leads to their customs. So for thousands of ages—
and their pointed rejection of women’s company remarkable to say—a tribe is eternal (gens aeterna
and marriage, with reasons elaborated by Philo. est) into which no one is born! So productive for
The Elder Pliny (C. Plinius Secundus, d. 79 them is the reconsideration of life by others.
CE), a Roman equestrian of wide experience, and Below these used to be the town of En Gedi
author of a Natural History of the known world that (infra hos Engada oppidum fuit), second only to
appeared in Rome about the same time as Josephus’ Jerusalem in fertility and groves of palm trees, but
War , singles out Esseni for mention in his quick now likewise a ruin (nunc alterum bustum). After
sketch of Judea (Nat. 5.68-73)—the only group that (inde) Masada, a fortress on a crag—for its part
so honored in that section. The direction of his not at all far from Asphaltitis (et ipsum haut procul
description of Judea is first up the Mediterranean Asphaltite). Thus is Judea.”
coast (coming from Egypt), then into the central- Before the discovery of the DSS, scholars under-
northern interior, around the Kinneret (Gennasaret) stood Pliny’s location of the Essenes in a vague and
in a clockwise direction, down the Jordan River, general way: since he mentions the now-destroyed
and finally around the Dead Sea in a clockwise city of En Gedi “below” the Essenes (infra hos), the
direction, concluding on its west side. His descrip- Essenes were assumed to live—still, after En Gedi’s
tion jumps around quite a bit, for example in sim- destruction—in the Judean hills to the west, away
ply listing the ten toparchic capitals (5.70), and in from the lake, which Pliny has already described
a short space he makes a large number of errors: as noxious and unpleasant (Nat. 5.71). This had
placing Samaria before Ascalon and Ashdod in his been the understanding of the third-century pla-
northward progression (5.68), then locating Gamala giarist of Pliny, C. Iulius Solinus, who took from
in Samaria (5.69), Iulias with Hippo to the east Pliny that Essenes occupied the internal parts of
of the Kinneret, and Tarichea to its south (5.71), Judea (interioria Iudaeae) west of the Dead Sea
Machaerus and Callirhoe to the south of the Dead (Coll. 35.9, 12). Scholarship before 1950 followed
Sea (Asphaltitis, 5.72). He amplifies the area of the suit.l Although Pliny’s meaning is much debated
Dead Sea considerably, making it 100 miles long
and 75 wide (5.72).
It is in his final comments on the western sec- l
W. H. Dixon (1869: 1.163-74, 176, 177-79, 194-
tor of the Dead Sea that Pliny mentions the gens 95) located the Essenes between Jerusalem and the
of Essenes (Nat 5.73). If we ask why he mentions Dead Sea, on the slopes of Mar Saba and En Gedi,
book two 93

in light of the Qumran discoveries, the basic issue source for a given phenomenon; multiple lines of
seems clear. Either Pliny’s description should be independent contemporary evidence are to be trea-
understood in a way that is basically compatible sured. Our task is to hypothesize the lost reality of
with the testimony of Philo and Josephus, which the Essenes that produced these various accounts,
seems entirely possible, or there is no reason to and drew the admiration of very different writers:
accept his testimony. That is, there is no other case an upper-class Alexandrian-Judean and Platonist
in which Pliny is credited where he disagrees with philosopher (Philo), a proud member of Jerusalem’s
Josephus on Judean realia, since he obviously does priestly aristocracy and new Roman citizen writing
not have a clear understanding of the region. It is for audiences in his adopted home (Josephus), a
hard to see why an exception should be made with Roman explorer and recorder of the world’s exotica
the Essenes. (Pliny), and a Greek statesman-orator who spent
Finally, the famous orator-statesman and Jose- much of his career focused on civic politics under
phus’ younger contemporary, Dio Chrysostom, from Roman rule, dealing with issues of concord and
Prusa in northern Asia Minor, apparently mentioned avoidance of factionalism (Dio).
the Essenes with admiration in a now lost work.
At least the fifth-century writer Synesius, in his The Historical Essenes
biography of Dio (3.2), relates that Dio “somewhere
praises the Essenes.” It is unclear how much if any Given this variety of perspectives, the many areas
of the accompanying description in Synesius, about of agreement nonetheless, and the simple but
their lifestyle beside the “Dead Water” and their remarkable fact that the Judean Essenes impressed
communal happiness, goes back to Dio, since it each of these writers enough to merit mention and
closely matches Synesius’ own language in places, admiration, hypothetically imagining the underly-
and it is his habit to cite a saying and offer his ing reality should not be unusually difficult. To
own elaboration. But it is at least significant for the have generated such accounts, the historical Ess-
historian that Dio had apparently heard of Judea’s enes must have been somewhat as described: an
Essenes and indicated his respect “somewhere.” impressive association of celibate males, widely
Given the general agreement of these indepen- dispersed throughout Judea, that welcomed outside
dent and contemporary sources on Judea’s Essenes, initiates willing to undertake their simple and rigor-
the historian is in an unusually good position. Very ous way of life. Their lifestyle placed a premium on
often we find ourselves with only one narrative utter simplicity, forswearing of private ownership
(community of goods), common meals of simple
around Ras el Feshka and “in the villages below Bethle- fare, equality within the order (with a democratic
hem.” Cf. Taylor 2002: 156. The major reference works election of leaders as needed), and the plainest
put Essenes somewhere west of En Gedi: W. Bauer in PW possible form of dress. They shunned conventional
(s.v. 1924: 390, “auf der Westseite des Toten Meeres in values, even the ubiquitous use of cosmetic oil.
der und um die Stadt Engada [Engeddi]”); K. Kohler in Their strenuous daily labor was offset on sabbaths,
the Jewish Encyclopaedia (1905: 5.231-32, “the Essenes to which they devoted all their attention to study
at En Gedi”); E. Schürer (1910: 2.193-94, the Essenes
should not be located only “in the desert of Engedi on
and improvement in virtue. They were especially
the Dead Sea” as Pliny implies). When A. Dupont- revered for their incorruptibility and their ability
Sommer (1952: 86 n. 1) proposed that, because Pliny’s to face death, even under torture, with equanimity.
description moves from En Gedi to Masada, he really They were admired because they had succeeded in
intends to move from north to south (placing Essenes implementing many features of utopian societies,
north of En Gedi and therefore near Qumran), he fully recalling in this respect the lost practices of the
recognized that this was a new proposal, in contrast to much-admired Spartans (without the militarism, as
the usual interpretations of Pliny, and that his proposal philosophers insisted).m Above all, they represented
might not be found convincing. In 1957, Yigael Yadin
understood this, as he supported what “Dupont-Sommer
m
suggests with justice” (1957: 185). Later scholarship, The 3rd-century Platonist Porphyry will present
however, came to insist that Pliny’s description of the an admiring portrait of the Spartans as models of the
Essenes was hardly compatible with any referent other disciplined life and regimented diet (Abst. 4.3.1-5.2),
than Qumran (Stern 1974: 2.481; Schürer-Vermes 2.563 ostensibly featuring abstinence from meat, shortly before
and n. 6; Grabbe 1992: 2.492-94; Vermes 1995: xxv; turning to the Essenes of Judea (4.11.3-13.10) and using
Magness 2002: 41). Josephus’ description in War for the purpose.
94 book two

a philosophical ideal, that Josephus will attribute to phus’ Essenes (and Pliny’s and Dio’s) are a group
the whole nation of Judeans. that do not identify themselves as Essenes and
If this was something like the historical reality, seem to be very different in fundamental ways. The
one could easily imagine how each author added DSS community, namely, appears in its texts as a
par ticular emphases and distinctive language in righteous-remnant, new-covenant group (CD 1-2),
connection with his own literary aims. Philo’s con- which sees the world in the sharply dualistic terms
cern with internal freedom might have determined of light and darkness. They are the sons of light, led
his choice of topics and emphasis in the extant by the Prince of Light, awaiting divine vengeance
essay; his claims that Essenes put aside logic for against all the sons of darkness (1QS 1.1-10), who
ethics, and that they study allegorically, obvi- live under the dominion of Satan, the Angel of
ously fit his literary concerns. Josephus’ pervasive Darkness (1QS 1-4). These men of the Covenant are
“order” language is apparently stressed to match led by the caste of priests and Levites, who appear
War ’s context (he does not have the same emphasis on almost every page of the sectarian scrolls. They
elsewhere), though it is a plausible embellishment. have a major grievance against the (non-Zadokite)
Pliny’s reflections of amazement similarly suit his priestly leadership of Jerusalem, especially against
wonder-recording purposes. the Wicked Priest who persecuted their Teacher
Some details are harder to explain, such as Jose- of Righteousness, along with the Scoffer and the
phus’ addition of marrying Essenes after his main “seekers after smooth things” (CD 1-2). Accord-
discussion (at 2.160-61), which he will omit from ingly, they follow their own (solar) calendar, reject-
his later account, to portray Essenes as celibate in ing the established lunar calendar and its appointed
keeping with the other reports. This endnote in War times. Priests and Levites will play a prominent
might, however, result from his immediate literary role in the coming 40-years’ war against the Kit-
concerns (see commentary). Pliny’s vague location tim (including Romans) and the sons of darkness
of Essenes might not be worth much, and might (1QM). The community also awaits two anointed
also arise from the constraints of his account (or eschatological leaders, one from Aaron’s line and
knowledge). If he implies by his repeated use of one from Israel (CD 12.23-13.1; 14.19; 20.1). The
gens, “thousands of ages past,” and the welcom- covenanters believe themselves to be among the
ing of outsiders from all over, that Essenes are not final generations before the apocalypse, and inter-
ethnic Judeans, this would be either mistaken (most pret scripture in a distinctive pesher mode as refer-
likely) or a matter of disagreement between him ring to themselves (e.g., 1QpHab).n
and Philo and Josephus. The many problems with supposing that these
Still, the sort of group that lies beneath all of were the people Josephus featured as Essenes, so
these accounts looks clear enough in its main lines. deeply admired by Philo, Pliny, and Dio, will now
The writers’ disagreements are of the sort that we be clear. The new covenanters represent a mentality
expect from independent reporters, whether caused completely at odds with the aristocratic, Greek-cul-
by misperception, partial knowledge, or literary- tured, statesman-like values of Josephus and the oth-
rhetorical artifice. The utopian reputation of the ers who so admiringly describe Essenes. Josephus,
group may have been inflated in relation to the friend of the future emperor Titus in Rome, a man
reality. But there were other such groups around of the world and skilled politician if ever there was
from time to time: the Spartans’ much-admired one, champion of Jerusalem’s Hasmonean-priestly
regimen had existed, as had the Pythagoreans, and aristocracy, and tireless advocate of the constitution
Philo devotes another essay (On the Contemplative of Moses practiced by all Judeans, wrote his War
Life) to the somewhat similar Therapeutae in Egypt, in a high register of Atticizing Greek. Josephus
of whom he says: “this type exists in many places has carefully read and absorbed his Thucydides,
in the world” (Contempl. 21). It seems that only a Polybius, Hellenistic historians, some orators and
determined effort to live up to those ideals could
have attracted such singular interest in the Essenes,
and these independent portraits of them. n
For expert overviews of the leading ideas emerging
To return to our starting point, however, this from the DSS on their own terms, see e.g. Yadin 1957:
is not the commonly held view of the group. The 73-155; VanderKam 1994: 110-19; Vermes 1995: 41-
dominant theory is that underlying Philo’s and Jose- 64.
book two 95

playwrights. His ideas about life under Roman rule had to fit somewhere in the religious landscape of
are complex and sophisticated, quite comparable to “three sects” described by Josephus. (iii) Judea
those of his contemporaries Plutarch and Dio. Jose- was dominated by Pharisaic-rabbinic leadership,
phus rejects out of hand the whole apocalyptic men- with a priestly-Sadducean rump. One could not
tality reflected in the Scrolls, along with messianic expect to find much sectarian diversity beyond that
claimants, prophets, and anyone else who misleads in Judea. (iv) Josephus, being a Jerusalem priest,
the gullible with promises of end-time salvation was not capable of high-level reflection and writ-
(e.g., 2.259-63; 6.285). His detailed interpretation ing in Greek, and so must have used sources and
of scripture is all in the public-constitutional vein, ghost-writers for most of his accounts, including
allowing him to compare it (as Philo does) with the “school” passages (before Black and Smith,
Greek constitutions. There is no hint of a sectarian thought to come from Nicolaus). (v) Josephus’ data
interest in this author. could be wrenched from their contexts and used as
The notion, therefore, that Josephus (like Philo needed, individually, because those contexts had
and Pliny) first came to admire the new covenanters little meaning or historical value.
of the DSS as models of the virtuous philosophical Accordingly, when scholars observed that the
life, and then took care to expunge all of the sect’s DSS community rules shared certain features with
clear and distinctive ideas from his account, as he Josephus’ Essenes—an ordered mainly male com-
enthusiastically promoted them before his Roman munity, with shared property, long and difficult
audience, and that he even mischievously credited initiation procedures, communal meals of simple
them with a Greek-like view of the soul and sun- but holy food—, they understandably reasoned that
worship, does not seem to have plausibility in its these must be those long-mysterious and invisible
favor. Essenes. Judea could surely not accommodate two
This is not to rule out in advance the possibil- groups that were so similar.
ity that the Essenes might turn out to have been The conditions that favored the Qumran-Ess-
DSS new covenanters—or Judean-Christians, or ene hypothesis have changed dramatically in the
some other group that does not call itself Essene— past half-century, however. We now recognize the
misunderstood and/or misrepresented and strangely region’s capacity for hosting a wide diversity of
admired by Philo, Josephus, and the others. But schools and sects, other than those mentioned by
such a hypothesis will need to explain the Essene Josephus (he does not, for example, give the Chris-
evidence considered above. The question is not tians any mention beyond the disputed passage
about conclusions, but about historical methods. in Ant. 18.63-64). Most importantly, the evidence
When the Qumran-Essene hypothesis was of Josephus and the other writers on the Essenes
launched in the 1950s, by a group of outstanding can no longer be treated piecemeal or as par-
scholars, it did not need to pass these tests, for it tially understood source vestiges: it must be taken
emerged in a very different scholarly environment, seriously and comprehensively explained by any
which seemed to lend it plausibility. Before Mor- hypothesis concerning the Essenes. It has become
ton Smith’s seminal article (1956) on diversity and meaningless to speak of “Hellenizations” by an
Hellenization in Judea, Martin Hengel’s initially author whose deepest thoughts about his world are
controversial Judaism and Hellenism, the work of so ably expressed, across thirty volumes, in Greek
Jacob Neusner and his many students on the vari- alone. The Qumran-Essene hypothesis, to the extent
eties of Judaism and the limitations of rabbinic that it depends upon discarded assumptions, does
authority, and especially the beginnings of seri- not have the same explanatory power today. If it
ous scholarship on Josephus (with Louis Feldman is to be argued, it must deal with the evidence as
and the Concordance), the following assumptions now understood.
still dominated the field. (i) Whereas the Pharisees For these reasons, the following commentary
were (thought to be) known from rabbinic literature does not assume that the new covenanters of the
and the NT, like the Sadducees to a lesser extent, DSS were “the real Essenes,” but rather seeks to
the Essenes, who did not appear in either corpus, understand Josephus’ narrative elements in their
must have left some traces somewhere. (ii) Cor- literary and historical contexts.
respondingly, when the DSS were discovered, they
96 book two

Three (8.2) 119732 For three forms733 of philosophy734 are pursued among the Judeans: the
philosophical members735 of one are Pharisees,736 of another Sadducees,737 and the third [school], who
schools. Ant.
18.11 certainly are reputed738 to cultivate seriousness,739 are called* Essenes;740 although Judeans

732
The opening sentence of this long digression on the Like Josephus, Philo presents the Essenes as exem-
“schools” recalls the famous opening sentence of Cae- plary Judean philosophers (Prob. 75-91). After calling
sar’s Gallic War (1.1): “Gaul is a whole divided in three Moses “the practitioner of a straightforward philosophy”
parts: of which Belgae inhabit one, Aquitani another, and (Prob. 43; cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.18-25), and mentioning a
the third, those who in their own language are called Cel- few truly wise men among Greeks, Persians, and Indians
tae, in ours Galli (Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, (Prob. 73-74), he turns to describe at length the Essaioi
quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam of Judea (Prob. 75-91). In the course of that description,
qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur).” he observes that the Essenes leave the logical branch of
The resemblance, which extends to such particular fea- philosophy to logic-choppers, since it has nothing to do
tures as the separation of the third term from the others, with establishing virtue, and physics to “star-gazers,”
suggests that Josephus intends to evoke an exotic ethno- since that sort of knowledge is beyond human nature
graphic atmosphere. At least, he presumably expected an [punning on Greek φύσις]; the Essenes concentrate
appreciative nod from his Roman audience. This parallel rather on the ethical component of philosophy, by con-
might have some bearing on the question of his knowl- stant immersion in their traditional laws and mores.
735
edge of Latin (see Introduction). Greek αἱρεστισταί. This is a good example of
733
Meaning “that which is seen,” therefore “forms, Josephus’ tendency to use a word several times in a short
shapes, figures” or “kinds, classes,” this word (εἴδος) space and then drop it (see BJP 9: lii). He uses this word
was a favorite of Plato (400+ occurrences) and Aris- only here and then twice as an alternative for “Essenes”
totle (640+ occurrences), among others. It has solid in the following paragraphs (2.124, 141). The word is a
philosophical credentials, therefore, being used to mean noun of personal agency built from the αἵρεσις (“philo-
everything from perfect Platonic forms or ideas (Phaed. sophical school”) just used in 2.118 of Judas’ school
103e; Resp. 596a) to kinds or classes of almost anything (see note there). Just as he will call individual Essenes
(Pol. 262e; Soph. 235d). Given its proximity to γένος αἱρετισταί at 2.124 and 141, he will label the group
in the same sentence here, it is possible that Josephus a αἵρεσις at 2.122, 137, 142. Yet more distinctively in
intends to exploit Aristotle’s use of the word for a subset this passage he will label them a τάγµα (“order, legion”:
of a genus (Rhet. 1393a)—“species.” 2.122, 125, 143, 160, 161), in keeping with his emphasis
734
Josephus’ descriptions of Pharisees, Sadducees, on their tight, military-style discipline, though in 2.164
and Essenes as “philosophical schools,” here and in Ant. he will describe Sadducees with the same word.
736
13.171-73; 18.11-22 (also Life 10-12, with commentary Josephus mentions or discusses Pharisees at War
in BJP 9), have invited much negative comment: he (or 1.571; 2.162-63; 2.411 (i.e., they hardly figure in the
his source) is alleged to have dressed up and misrepre- War); Ant. 13.171-73, 288-98, 400-32; 15.3; 17.41-45;
sented Jewish-Judean phenomena in Greek dress. The 18.12-15; Life 10-12, 189-98. Scholarly discussion of the
classic statement is Moore 1929. Whatever truth there Pharisees—their name, origin, character, beliefs, con-
may be in the charge (problem: our knowledge of these nection with Josephus, links with militant movements,
groups comes largely from Josephus), we must remem- and place in society—is vast. See Mason 1991, 1994,
ber that ancient “philosophy” was much more a way 1999a (with summaries of earlier work); Saldarini 1988;
of living—sometimes exclusively concerned with train- Grabbe 1992: 2.467-84; Stemberger 1995; Baumgarten
ing in virtue, in ways that we more naturally associate 1997.
737
with religious or civic-group training (e.g., Scouts or This is the first reference to Sadducees in Jose-
Guides)—than a system of abstract thought (cf. Mason phus. Elsewhere he mentions them rarely and with little
1999b). This is clear from Josephus’ rough contempo- discussion: War 2.164-65; Ant. 13.171-73, 293, 296-98;
raries, Seneca, Epictetus, Plutarch, and Dio of Prusa (cf. 18.17-17; 20.199; Life 10-12. Scholarship on the Sad-
Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and later Boethius’ Conso- ducees is not nearly as copious as that on the Pharisees
lation of Philosophy). Indeed, as Lucian’s Nigrinus illus- because of more limited sources in Josephus, the NT,
trates (cf. also Hermotimus), philosophy was the arena and rabbinic literature. See especially Le Moyne 1972, as
in which one underwent the sort of radical conversion well as Saldarini 1988, Stemberger 1995, Grabbe (1992:
of lifestyle and values that we connect with religion (cf. 2.484-91), and Baumgarten 1997.
738
Nock 1933: 164-86). Possibly “imagine themselves to cultivate seri-
book two 97

by ancestry,741 they are even more mutually affectionate than the others.742 120 Whereas Essene life:
distinctive
structures

ousness” (δοκεῖ σεµνοτητα ἀσκεῖν). This is one of tience with the frivolous pursuits of others—especially
Josephus’ characteristic constructions: subject + δοκεῖ empty rhetoric (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 212f, 215e,
+ infinitive [+ object] (Mason 1991: 106-13). It is an 220a)—over against their neighbor states (Xenophon,
open-ended formulation in two ways: (a) the auxiliary Lac. 1.2; Plutarch, Lyc. 21.1; 22.3).
verb can either refer to the subject’s thought (he intended, In keeping with such Spartan-Roman ideals, Josephus
imagined) or it can be impersonal (he/it seemed, was eulogizes the Judean statesman at the center of the War ,
regarded, reputed); (b) either way, it remains unclear Ananus (see Introduction), as a “serious and extremely
without context whether the reputation or intention was just man” (σεµνὸς ἁνὴρ καὶ δικαιότατος; War 4.319),
realized. Was the reputation deserved? In the context and he also credits Vespasian with this virtue—in the
here, it seems that (a) the Essenes’ reputation is the point eyes of the Roman Senate (7.65)—in contrast to earlier
(contra Whiston: the sect “pretends to a severer disci- emperors such as Nero. Josephus uses the abstract noun
pline”) and (b) Josephus heartily endorses that reputation only 8 times, but in highly significant places: in Apion
(δή). In speaking of their reputation for cultivating seri- 1.225; 2.223 he makes dignity or seriousness the distinc-
ousness (σεµνότητα ἀσκεῖν), a virtue closely connected tive trait of the Judeans (in contrast to allegedly frivolous
with self-control (see the next sentence, 2.120), Jose- Egyptians); in Ant. 12.224 the Tobiad Joseph, is credited
phus recalls Philo’s remark (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 with such gravitas; and unsurprisingly he singles out this
[380d]) that the Essenes proscribed marriage at the same virtue as the hallmark of his own public life (Life 258).
time that they prescribed “the cultivation of exceptional The verb ἀσκέω and its noun ἄσκησις also resonate with
self-control” (διαφερόντως ἀσκεῖν ἐγκράτειαν). Spartan and Roman values of discipline and moral exer-
That the verb δοκεῖ refers to the Essenes’ reputation cise (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 3.3; 4.3), and Josephus uses the
seems confirmed by the fact that this group (contrast word group of both the Essenes (2.150) and the Judeans
Pharisees and Sadducees) is well known by the Alexan- as a nation: the latter pursue training in character and
drian Judean Philo (Prob. 57-71; Hypothetica, in Euse- virtue (Apion 2.171, 173, 192, 272).
740
bius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [esp. 381a]), Josephus’ Roman Of the 3 schools, Josephus has most to say about
contemporary Pliny the Elder (Nat. 5.73), and Dio of the Essenes; the following (2.119-61) is by far his
Prusa (in Synesius, Dio 3.2). One of Josephus’ main longest and most favorable discussion of any school.
reasons for digressing at such length on the Essenes, They appear elsewhere at War 1.78, 213; 2.567; 3.11;
then, might be to give the audience what he thought they 5.145; Ant. 13.171-73; 13.298, 311; 15.371-78; 17.346;
wanted: more authentic knowledge of this exotic group. 18.18-22; Life 10-12. On their name and identity, see the
Josephus will make them representative of the Judeans note to “Essaeus by type” at 2.113. Paradoxically, schol-
as a people. arship on the Essenes is much more copious than for any
739
Or “solemnity, dignity, gravity.” (The phrase other school not because Josephus has the most to say
σεµνότητα ἀσκεῖν is balanced at the end of the passage about them (he was traditionally taken for a Pharisee),
by the Pharisees’ ὁµόνοιαν ἀσκοῦντες.) Greek σεµνότης but because of the standard identification of the Essenes
corresponds to the peculiarly Roman virtues, anticipated with the producers of the DSS from Qumran. Books
by Sparta, of dignitas and gravitas. Plutarch’s lives of ostensibly about the Essenes, or even Josephus’ Essenes
Greek and Roman rulers feature this term (Rom. 13.7; (e.g., M-B [1962]: 1. nn. 35-86; Beall 1988; Vermes and
Num. 4.2; 8.3, 5; Sol. 1.6; 12.1; 15.6; Publ. 9.9; Per. Goodman 1989; Bergmeier 1993; Rajak 1994) expli-
5.3; 7.6; 24.5; Fab. Max. 10.7; Cor. 10.8; Arist. 5.2; 6.3; cate Josephus’ descriptions mainly by comparison with
Cato Maj. 6.4; Phil. 15.9; Mar. 17.2; Lys. 17.6; Sull. the DSS, rather than according to his own narrative and
13.4; Luc. 6.2; Ages. 21.3; Pomp. 1.3; 21.3; 42.5; 53.2; language. For the state of the question, see Stemberger
Cato Min. 5.4; 17.144.1 etc.), as do his tracts on govern- 1995, Grabbe (1992: 2.491-99), and Baumgarten 1997.
741
ment (Mor. [Sen. resp.] 788a-b, 789f, 794a-c, [Praec.] See the notes to “type” at 2.113 and to “forms”
801d, 803a, 811b-c, 813c, 820c, 822b, 823e). Romans in this section. Josephus may be playing with this lan-
often portrayed Greeks in contrast to themselves as light- guage, since he makes Judas an Essene by γένος at 2.113
weight and frivolous (cf. Balsdon 1979: 30-58; Plutarch, and yet now says that Essenes are Judeans by γένος. He
Cat. Maj. 6; Lendon 1997: 42). The same point about may also be quickly dispelling any suspicion that the
Greeks was made by the Spartan kings, who reportedly famed Essenes are not in fact Judeans, an impression
cultivated a distinctive way of life, characterized by one might gain from Pliny’s repeated term gens for the
modesty, seriousness (Xenophon, Lac. 3.4-5), and impa- goup (Nat. 5.73); he emphasizes that they are admirable
98 book two

these men shun the pleasures743 as vice,744 they consider self-control745 and not succumbing
to the passions746 virtue.747 And although there is among them a disdain748 for marriage,749

specimens of his own countrymen. Grammatically, this 41-42, 91; Plutarch, Cato Maj. e.g., 1-9; Mor. 198d-f.
notice also prepares for the coming statement about their See further 2.138, where ἐγκράτεια appears as what all
great mutual affection. Essene novices must prove before they advance to the
742
Cf. War 2.166, the conclusion of the passage (cre- second stage.
746
ating an inclusio), where Josephus contrasts Pharisees— This phrase is an articular infinitive: “the not-
who are mutually affectionate and cultivate harmony in collapsing-before-[the-assault-of-the]-passions.” The
the general assembly (φιλάλληλοι as here), with Sad- language of “falling” or “cringing before” (ὑποπίπτω)
ducees, who are extremely rude even to each another. His the passions, as if submitting to a conquering enemy,
concern for collegial relations continues in the descrip- evokes an ongoing moral contest; for the military use
tions at Ant. 18.12 (of Pharisees). of the verb see War 5.329, 365, 382; 7.371. Cf. Philo’s
743
The Greek word ἡδονή normally (though not repeated description of the Essenes as “athletes of vir-
always) indicates physical or sensual pleasure (see LSJ), tue” (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [379d]; Prob. 38, 88).
as the context here—avoiding marriage—also suggests. Slaves to passion in War have included Marc Antony
The biblical figure of Cain becomes in Josephus’ hands (re: Cleopatra, 1. 243, 359), Herod the Great (re: Mari-
the paradigm of vice (κακία) expressed through the pur- amme, 1.436, 440, 441, 442, 444, 484), Pheroras (re:
suit of physical pleasure (ἡδονή . . . τῷ σώµατι, Ant. a slave-girl, 1.484, 506)), and Archelaus (re: Glaphyra,
1.60). For pursuit of the pleasures (ἡδονάς) as vice 2.115). Mastery of the passions or emotions (πάθη), a
(κακία), see Thucydides 3.58.1-2; Plutarch, Mor. 545e, primary virtue of both philosophy and Roman élite cul-
555e; Diogenes Laertius 7.104. For Aristotle (Eth. eud. ture (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 2.3; 3.6; 4.2; 11.3), was the
1222b, 1227b etc.) it is not pleasures per se, but an subject of discussion also among Jewish-Judean writ-
excess of pleasure (or sorrow) that is bad. The closest ers, for example in 4 Maccabees (1:1) and Philo’s Every
parallel to Josephus’ “shun the pleasures” appears to be Good Man is Free.
747
in Philo (Sacr. 45): “When it has heard these things, The contrasting pair “virtue and vice” (ἀρετὴ καὶ
the mind shuns pleasure [singular without article] and καικία), very common in Greek ethical discussions
clings to virtue.” Shunning pleasure, the reverse of nor- (e.g., Aristotle’s Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics, also
mal human behavior, was the Leitmotif of Spartan train- his Virtues and Vices), also represents one of Josephus’
ing: the laws of Lycurgus were said to instill “contempt favorite themes. He mentions “virtue” (ἀρετή) some
for the pleasures” (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 210a). 116 times in his paraphrase of the Bible, whereas the
Galen (Plac. hipp. Plat. 5.5.3, 16) observes the normal canonical LXX has it only 8 times. For the pair, see
human tendency when he describes children naturally War 2.156 (of Essenes), 585; 4.387; Ant. 1.72; 4.325;
pursuing “the pleasures” and shunning or fleeing work. 6.93; 8.252; 17.101, 246; 18.13-14 (of Pharisees); 19.16;
744
Or “cowardice.” See the note to “virtue” in this Apion 2.145. For Roman conceptions of virtue and vice
section. (virtus, vitiositas/malitia), and their relation to the Greek
745
The Essenes’ disciplined restraint—Greek ἐγκρά- terms, see M. Roller 2001: 22-26.
748
τεια, one of the most frequently discussed virtues in Josephus uses ὑπεροψία only here and at 3.320
relation to all emotions (cf. Seneca, On Anger; Plutarch (of the Judeans’ indifference to suffering in war, admired
on Control of Anger, Tranquillity of Mind)—contrasts by Vespasian).
749
here with the utter lack of control over the passions The exotic ethnographic character of this passage
exhibited by Archelaus in the preceding paragraphs comes to light through a comparison with Strabo 7.3.3:
(2.115). Plato can speak of “containment of the plea- he describes the Mysoi, who on account of their piety
sures” (ἐγκράτεια ἡδονῶν, Resp. 390b; cf. Aristotle, eat no living creatures (existing on milk, honey, and
Eth. nic. 1149a), though the noun often appears alone cheese, and who thus deserve the name “God-fearers”),
in the absolute sense of “self-control,” as in Josephus and then the “Founders” among the Thracians, who live
here (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1145b). For Josephus’ model without women—so devoted are they to living honorably
Polybius, self-control was the distinguishing feature of and without fear. Cf. Ant. 18.22, where Josephus pos-
the aristocrat, who acquired it through culture or educa- sibly (i.e., depending upon the Greek text) compares the
tion (παιδεία); it was this quality that enabled him to be Essenes with these (there “Dacian”) “Founders.” Sexual
a leader, over against the impulsive masses, soldiers, and restraint was a subset of the general ideal of self-control
barbarians (Eckstein 1995: 77, 118-93, 248). On the cru- for much of the Roman élite, and frequent sexual activ-
cial importance of self-mastery in the Roman hierarchy ity was sometimes thought to diminish the vital energy
of aristocratic values, see Earl 1967: 1-43; Lendon 1997:
book two 99

adopting750 the children of outsiders751 while they are still malleable752 enough for the
lessons753 they regard them as family and instill in them their principles of character:754
121 without doing away with marriage755 or the succession resulting from it,756 they never-

(pneuma) that defined masculinity (Gleason 1999: 73, there are no children, adolescents, or even young men
76). For the manliest of occupations, membership in the among the Essenes, but only men nearing old age, volun-
legions, singleness was required, and when Philo wrote teers who are there by choice. In Prob. 76, Philo claims
that Essenes forego marriage so as to avoid distraction that Essenes have fled the evils of the cities to live in
(Apol. 14-17; cf. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.32-35), he was using a village communities, again implying adult novices. Most
familiar logic for legionary singleness (Herodian 3.8.5). remarkably, Josephus himself describes a 3-year admis-
The inclination of Roman aristocratic males to avoid sion process at 2.137-42, which tests one’s character and
marriage and children was a growing problem, which self-control, which culminates in the awesome oaths of
Augustus had enacted laws to check (Dio 56.1-2; Parkin initiation, and which would seem absurd if required of
1992: 119-21). children. It is difficult, therefore, to reconcile this claim
Next to the absence of private ownership, the celibacy about adoption with other evidence—unless perhaps one
of the Essenes is the point made most emphatically by should imagine that Essenes ran schools, orphanages, or
all writers who mention them, from Pliny’s description other associations that would begin to prepare children
(“without any women [sine ulla femina] and renouncing for later entry into the group as adults.
752
all sexual desire,” Nat. 5.73) to Philo (as cited by Euse- Or “yielding, delicate, soft.” Though widely attested
bius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [380d-81a]), who has them banning in classical Greek, this adjective (ἁπαλός) occurs only
marriage as the chief obstacle to communal relations: here in Josephus.
753
“None of the Essaioi takes a woman” [Ἐσσαίων γὰρ In Josephus, lessons indicated by this word
οὐδεις ἄγεται γυναῖκα]). In the parallel at Ant. 18.21, (µαθήµατα) are always predicated of children; the word
Josephus himself is equally emphatic: “they do not take occurs elsewhere only at Ant. 4.211; 16.6.
754
in [or bring into the community] wives.” All of this serves “Principles of character” renders the Greek plural
to isolate Josephus’ surprising description at the end of of ἦθος. See the note to “philosophy” in 2.119 above,
this passage, of “a different order of Essenes” who do and to “character” at Life 430 in BJP 9. The testing of
marry (2.160-61); see the notes there. It appears that character will be the crucial criterion for admission to
both Jesus and Paul advocated celibacy (Matt 19:10-12; the order (2.138).
755
1 Cor 7:7-8, 32-35; 9:5-6), as did perhaps such teachers The point seems to be that the Essenes do not
as John the Baptist and Bannus. Outside of 1QS (which call for the end of marriage tout court—the verb here,
says nothing explicit on the matter), however, the DSS ἀναιρέω, is commonly used by Josephus in military con-
appear to assume that community members marry and texts for “getting rid of ”—or denounce the institution in
raise children (1QSa 1.4; CD 7.6-7; 1QM 7.4-5; 11QT general, for that would mean the end of humanity; it is
45.11-12), and a few skeletons of women and children only that Essenes keep themselves away from it. See the
have been found in the cemetery at Qumran (Vermes note to “marriage” at 2.120. Even still, this passage does
1995: 9; Magness 2002: 163-87—she suggests that only not prepare us for the marrying Essenes of 2.160-61.
756
3 are certainly female). This comment on succession (ἡ διαδοχή) creates
750
Although Greek ἐκλαµβάνω (“receive from, select, a bond with the preceding narrative, which has been
take away or out, carry off ”) offers a variety of senses, devoted to the Herodian succession crisis, beginning
including the forcible removal (if βίᾳ is added) of one’s in Herod’s lifetime with numerous wills and contin-
children (Isocrates, Pan. 2.194), the congenial context ued through the rivalry among his sons—a debacle that
here suggests a mutually agreeable arrangement with the Josephus has chosen to feature. It is unclear whether
parents. But see the following note. the succession in question here is that of humanity (cf.
751
So also Hippolytus, Haer. 9.18. The monastic the 2nd-cent. CE medical writer Soranus, Gyn. 3.24.1,
practice of adopting others’ children in order to maintain on marriage and human succession) or only of the Ess-
the school’s complement does not appear in the parallel ene order; exclued, at any rate, is any craving for per-
(Ant. 18.21-22), in spite of its even stronger emphasis sonal succession, in sharp contrast to the worries of the
on Essene celibacy. Pliny (Nat. 5.73; see Excursus) says politically powerful. Curiously, the “different order of
rather that the group is continually replenished through Essenes” described in 2.160-61 holds this succession
the arrival of crowds “tired of life and the vicissitudes of (also ἡ διαδοχή–supporting the symmetry) in such high
fortune”—evidently, adults. That accords with Philo (in regard—as “the greatest function of life,” without which
Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [379b]), who emphasizes that the race or order (γένος: see notes to “type” at 2.113
100 book two

theless protect themselves from the wanton ways of women,757 having been persuaded that
none of them preserves her faithfulness to one man.758
(8.3) 122 Since [they are] despisers of wealth759—their communal stock760 is astonish-

and “ancestry” at 2.119) would die out—that they are Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11 [380d-81a]) dwells at length
willing to suffer the deed themselves. Since this main on women’s putative shortcomings (they are selfish,
body of Essenes has already dealt with the problem of jealous, manipulative and, after giving birth, arrogant
succession, by adoption, one must imagine either that and violent). A woman’s ability to distract a man, also
there was a dispute about the sufficiency of the adopted discussed by Philo here, figures in Paul’s preference for
newcomers’ numbers (contra Pliny, Nat. 5.73), or about celibacy (1 Cor 7:32-35) and in the logic for singleness
their suitability, or about one’s personal obligation to in the Roman legions (Herodian 3.8.5). At any rate, such
perpetuate the human race (cf. Gen 1.28); it is also pos- disparaging remarks about women and their influence
sible Josephus has invented marrying Essenes. See the were common in Roman circles (e.g., Plutarch, Mor.
notes to that passage. [Reg. apoph.] 198d-f; Cat. Maj. 1-9). Sexual restraint
757
This phrase (ἀσελγείαι γυναικῶν) is characteris- was a rhetorical ideal of the Roman élite male (Gleason
tic: Josephus uses it of the femmes fatales Jezebel (Ant. 1999: 73, 76).
759
8.318), Cleopatra (Ant. 15.98), and Herod’s wife Mari- Josephus uses “despiser” (καταφρονητής) only 3
amme (War 1.439), also of transvestite Galilean Zealots times: again of the Essenes (2.151) and once of the early
in Jerusalem during the war, who “used to imitate wom- Saul’s example as a “despiser of terrors” (Ant. 6.347).
en’s passions and dream up forbidden desires on account This nomen agentis form of the verb καταφρονέω is
of the excess of their wantonness” (War 4.562). Cf. also attested very rarely before his time (LXX Hab. 1:5; 2:5;
Philo, Vit. Mos. 1.305; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 2.56. This Soph. 3:4; Philo, Legat. 322), though his contemporaries
conjunction of words is not common in Greek literature Epictetus (Diatr. 4.7.33) and Plutarch (Brut. 12.2; Mor.
before Josephus, where wantonness is sometimes attrib- [Virt. sent.] 84a, 1044a) begin to use it. Although the term
uted to men in relation to women and drink (Polybius often indicates negative character traits (e.g., despisers
10.38.2; 25.3.7); it does turn up in the fragmentary 1st- of the laws and justice in Epictetus, Diatr. 4.7.33; LXX
century BCE astrological writings of Timaeus Praxidas Hab. 1:5), Josephus and Plutarch use it ironically—of
(Frag. 1.99), Antiochus (Frags. 7.113, 115 [Monac. 7]), despising the things ordinarily most desired (wealth) or
and Dorotheus (Frag. 343); similarly the 2nd-cent. CE feared (suffering); cf. 2.151 (a symmetrical parallel): the
astrologer Vettius Valens (Anthol. 2.4, 17, 37, 41 [Pin- Essenes despise the terrors associated with death. On all
gree]). this compare the lengendary Spartans, whose lawgiver
758
Greek µηδεµίαν . . . τὴν πρὸς ἕνα πίστιν. In the Lycurgus had banished wealth and poverty: he made all
preceding story of Glaphyra’s dream (2.114-16), Jose- the land one and persuaded the citizens to live on the
phus has illustrated his claim about women’s fickleness basis of equality, surpassing each other only in virtue
with the dead Alexander’s tirade against his widow. In (Plutarch, Lyc. 8.1-2). Traditional Roman detestation of
Ant. 17.352 that charge is formulated universally: “Gla- luxuria is comprehensively reviewed by Weeber 2003;
phyra, you certainly prove correct the customary say- cf. Dalby 2000.
760
ing, ‘women are faithless’ [ἄπιστα].” According to Ant. Greek θαuµάσιον αὐτοῖς τὸ κοινωνικόν. Jose-
4.219, Moses rejected evidence from women because phus elaborates on their community of goods at 2.127.
of their silliness and brazenness; cf. 13.430-31; Apion It is unclear whether he means here only that the fact
2.201. For the portrait(s) of women in Polybius, one of of their sharing is amazing, or that the resulting size of
Josephus’ main literary influences, see Eckstein 1995: their communal wealth impresses outsiders. This is the
150-60. On women in Josephus, see among others May- sole occurrence in Josephus of the adjective κοινωνικός,
er-Schärtel 1995; Ilan 1999: 85-125; Matthews 2001; though fellowship or common life (κοινωνία) is a major
Grünenfelder 2003. For women as faithless (ἄπιστα) see Josephan theme. In part, it is the opposite of the hatred
Euripides, Iph. taur. 1298; Menander, Frag. 801 [Kock] for humanity (µισανθρωπία) with which Judeans have
(“the nature of woman is faithless”); Plutarch, Lyc. 15.9; often been charged, especially after the war with Rome.
Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 228b. He protests that the Judean laws are designed to produce
Although Essene sources agree on the group’s celi- κοινωνία (Apion 2.146, 151, 208): “we were born for
bacy, they offer various reasons for it. Josephus will κοινωνία, and he who sets its claims above his private
later say (Ant. 18.21) that taking in wives introduces a interests is particularly favored by God” (Apion 2.196).
source of dissension (στάσις), which might have many When Greek philosophers taught “simplicity of life and
interpretations: male competition for women’s attention, fellowship with one another,” they were only imitat-
or strife and distraction within a marriage. Philo (in ing Moses (Apion 2.281). Even more pointedly (Apion
book two 101

ing761—, one cannot find a person among them who has more in terms of possessions.762
For by a law,763 those coming into the school764 must yield up765 their funds766 to the
order,767 with the result that in all [their ranks] neither the humiliation of poverty768 nor
the superiority of wealth769 is detectable, but the assets of each one have been mixed in
together, as if they were brothers,770 to create one fund771 for all.
123 They consider olive oil772 a stain,773 and should anyone be accidentally smeared774

2.291), the Judean laws “appeal not for misanthropy see the notes to “school” at 2.118 and “adherents” at
but rather for the communal sharing of goods” (οὐδ ᾿ 2.119—in this passage (also 2.125, 143, 160, 161). As
ἐπὶ µισανθρωπίαν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ὄντων κοινωνίαν the standard equivalent of the Latin legio (legion), the
παρακαλοῦντες). The Essenes, then, only display a more word seems particularly appropriate for the highly disci-
obvious commitment to the virtues that characterize the plined, all male, eminently courageous corps of Essenes;
nation as a whole. Josephus also uses it of the Sadducees at 2.164.
761 768
This editoral interjection of “astonishing” For poverty (πενία) as humiliation (ταπεινότης),
(θαυµάσιος) is typical of Josephus: War 4.478; 5.174; see also Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.54.1; 10.19.1; Josephus,
Ant. 2.198, 265. Ant. 7.84.
762 769
Community of goods is the Essene trait most fully Ant. 9.3 has a similar phrase, ὑπεροχὴ διὰ
and frequently discussed in all Essene texts. Josephus πλοῦτον. Here it is ὑπεροχὴ πλούτου.
770
will later say that “goods are common among them” The Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus, after dividing up
(Ant. 18.20); Pliny remarks that they have no money all the land and banishing gold and silver along with
(Nat. 5.73); Philo says that they are almost unique among every kind of inequality, is said to have declared “All
humankind in living without goods and property (Prob. Laconia looks like a family estate newly divided up
77), and describes their practice in detail (in Eusebius, among many brothers” (Plutarch, Lyc. 8.4; cf. Mor.
Praep. ev. 8.11 [379c-d]). Namely: they combine their [Apoph. Lac.] 226b-c).
771
possessions, forswearing anything that produces wealth; See the note to “funds” earlier in this section.
772
they receive income from trades, but hand it over to a Olive oil (τὸ ἔλαιον) was an extremely impor-
steward for redistribution; they share not only the same tant commodity throughout the Mediterranean world.
food but also clothes, each being able to take whatever In addition to its use in food—providing as much as a
he needs from the common collection. third of the average person’s caloric intake (Tyree and
Such community of goods was one of the most fun- Stefanoudaki 1996: 171)—it served for lighting, fuel,
damental utopian and philosophical ideals, often associ- hygienic and cosmetic products, and medicines. Greeks
ated with primitive, uncorrupted humanity (Ferguson and Romans customarily washed by smearing themselves
1975: 19-20). It characterized Pythagoras’ mathematikoi, with oil, rubbing it in, and then scraping it off (along
Plato’s ideal state (Leg. 745c); the republic of the Stoic with any grime) with an implement known as a strigil,
Chrysippus (Plutarch, Mor. [Stoic. rep.] 1044b-d; Cicero, in the Greek gymnasium or Roman baths. Large rotary
Fin. 3.20.67; Ferguson 1975: 119), Philo’s therapeutae olive presses and squeezing centers continue to be found
(Contempl. 18), the early Christians of Acts (2:44-45; even in small Galilean towns and remote areas (Hestrin
4:34-37), the men of the Alexandrian Museum (Strabo and Yeivin 1977; Goodman 1990: 227). Since in conven-
17.1.8), and the group behind the Community Rule of tional life olive oil seemed indispensable (Garnsey 1999:
Qumran (1QS 1.11-13; 6.19-23; contrast CD 14.12-16). 12-14; Tyree and Stefanoudaki 1996), Josephus’ claim
On this point, again, the Essenes embody Josephus’ ideal that the Essenes avoided it and bathed only in cold water
for all Judeans (Apion 2.281). See also the note to “com- (War 2.129) would make them quite remarkable ascetics:
munal stock” in this section. see the note to “dry” in this section.
763 773
Or “convention, rule” (νόµος). This avoidance of contact with oil (on the skin—
764
See the notes to “school” at 2.118 and “adherent” there is no exclusion for food and fuel) is mentioned only
at 2.119. by Josephus, of the ancient authors who describe the
765
Greek δηµεύω, “make or declare public,” which Essenes. Their preference for cold-water baths (2.129)
Josephus uses only here and at 3.435 (of the mourning indicates extreme simplicity and toughness. For the same
that “became widespread” at the premature news of his language, that olive-oil leaves a “stain,” see Plutarch,
own death). Mor. [Quaest. conv.] 696d: physical stains from olive-oil
766
Greek οὐσία: “substance.” Cf. colloquial English [ἐλαίου κηλῖδας] endure and cannot be easily removed
“stuff ” or perhaps “worth.” from clothes. Josephus applies such practical knowledge
767
Or “corps.” This (τάγµα) is one of several terms about this property of oil, perhaps playfully, to skin.
Josephus uses as an alternative to “school” (αἵρεσις)— For a possible connection with the DSS (CD 12.15-17),
102 book two

with it he scrubs775 his body, for they make it a point of honor to776 remain hard and dry,777
and to wear white always.778
Hand-elected779 are the curators of the communal affairs,780 and indivisible781 are they,

depending upon whether one reads ‫“[ שמן‬oil, fat”] or ‫שמו‬ (“be unwashed, squalid, parched, hard and dry”)—indi-
[“his name”]), see J. Baumgarten 1967-69: 183 and Beall cating a condition to be avoided or relieved through rain
1988: 45, 142 n. 56. Contrast the readings in Vermes or washing, as in its other appearances in Josephus: War
1995: 111 (“All wood and stones and dust defiled by 4.457; Ant. 7.297 (cf. Plato, Resp. 606d; Diogenes Laer-
the impurity of a man shall be reckoned like men with tius 8.59; 9.3; Plutarch, Num. 13.6-7; Ages. 30.3; Mor.
regard to conveying defilement”) and García Martínez [Reg. apoph.] 193a, 365d). For the metaphorical use of
1996: 43 (“And all the wood and the stones and the dust this word group, for the simple and austere philosophi-
which are defiled by man’s impurity, by defilement of cal lifestyle, which this passage matches, see Diogenes
oil in them . . .”). Whereas Baumgarten and Beall argue Laertius 4.19.
that the issue for the Qumraners (whom they equate with In view of the many parallels between Josephus’
Essenes) involves the capacity of oil to conduct impurity, Essenes and the Spartan legend (see Excursus), it is
Josephus plainly makes their concern a preference for noteworthy that the Spartans too were remembered for
hard, dry skin—much as the Spartans were reported to considering their dry—unwashed—skin (same root:
favor—and the question is not oil considered impure (on αὐχµηροὶ τὰ σώµατα) a mark of toughness (Plutarch,
which cf/ Life 74 with notes in BJP 9), but olive oil in Lyc. 16.6; Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 237b), matching Josephus’
general. See the following note and the one to “dry” in language here. Both groups thus reject conventional
this section; for the purity of oil. standards take it as honorable (or “beautiful”) to avoid
774 what most others consider essential—in appearance as
Or “anointed” (κἂν ἀλειφθῇ τις ἄκων). All 3
occurrences of ἀλείφω in Josephus (also 5.565; Ant. in property, wealth, and lifestyle.
6.165) occur in conjunction with the cognate noun τὸ On the opposite end of the moral spectrum, in Jose-
ἔλαιον as here. The other reference in War, a nearly phus’ narrative it is men who have no shred of self-
symmetrical counterpart at the end of bk. 5 (5.565), con- control who indulge the use of oil: at War 5.565-66, John
cerns the reprehensible behavior attributed to John of of Gischala impiously distributes the temple supplies
Gischala, whose men deliberately smeared themselves of oil and wine to his men, who anoint themselves and
with olive oil from the temple stores as they consumed drink heartily. This same group, Josephus claims ear-
the sacrificial wine; Josephus immediately cites the com- lier (4.561-62), went so far as to adopt women’s ways:
ing divine punishment (5.566). The possibility here that plaiting their hair, wearing women’s clothes (in spite of
one might be accidentally smeared implies that the Ess- Ant. 4.301), drenching themselves in perfume, applying
enes handled wine for other purposes (cooking, fuel, make-up, giving in to “the passions of women” (πάθη
light); they only refrained from the effeminate-seeming γυναικῶν), and indulging a “surfeit of wantonness”
practice of washing and anointing themselves with it. (ὑπερβολὴν ἀσελγείας). For Roman resonances, com-
This appears to confirm that the issue was not purity, pare Tacitus’ disdain for Nero’s distribution of oil to the
which would have implications for cooking and eating equestrian and senatorial orders at his dedication of a
and not simply for skin. gymnasium: “a Greek predilection (Graeca facilitate)”
775 (Ann. 14.47). The Essenes’ discipline in physical appear-
The verb σµήχω (here middle voice) occurs only
here in Josephus. Before his time it is rarely attested ance thus reflects their moral perspicuity as surely as the
(e.g., cf. Homer, Od. 6.226; Strabo 3.4.16; 17.3.7), rebels’ degeneracy produces a disgraceful demeanor.
778
mainly—as later—in medical texts (Hippocrates, Mul. According to 2.137, the novice Essene is presented
aff. 75.13, 17; 190; Diaet. morb. 18.8; dozens of times with white clothes at the point of probationary accep-
in the Materia Medica of the 1st-century CE Dioscurides tance, 3 years before full membership. White was widely
Pedianus; Cyranides 4.60, 69; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Quaest. recognized in the ancient Mediterranean world as the
conv.] 627e). color of purity, of the Gods’ clothing, of temple service,
776 and to some extent of celebration: see Croom 2000: 28;
Or “consider it beautiful, fine [ironically], good”
(ἐν καλῷ τίθενται)—a phrase attested sparsely before Sebesta 2001: 48, and the note to “white garment” at War
Josephus (cf. Polybius 6.56.3; cf. 1.81.9; Strabo 4.5.4; 2.1. The verb λευχειµονέω occurs only here in Josephus.
11.13.11; later Appian, Bell. civ. 1.12.103), which he Other authors use it in similarly lofty, sublime contexts:
employs also at Ant. 19.299. He uses the same expres- Strabo 7.2.3; Philo, Contempl. 66 [of the Therapeutae];
sion at 2.146, symmetrically, of Essene deference to Cher. 95; Herodian 8.7.2; Dio 63.4.2; 74.1.4.
779
elders. The adjective χειροτονητός occurs only here
777
Greek τὸ γὰρ αὐχμεῖν ἐν καλῷ τίθενται. The in Josephus (cf. χειροτονοῦντες at Ant. 18.22) and is
stative verb αὐχµέω normally has negative connotations rare elsewhere. The main alternative to being “elected
book two 103

each and every one, [in pursuing] their functions to the advantage of all.782
(8.4) 124 No one city is theirs, but they settle783 amply in each.784 And for those school-

by show of hands” was to be lot-elected (κληρωτός: elytes, CD 14.3-6; cf. Beall 1988: 99-100), Josephus
Aeschines, Tim. 21; Ctes. 14, 25, 29; Aristotle, Ath. pol. describes among his Essenes only these elected officials,
55.2), as were early Christian leaders according to Acts and only in the plural (here and at 2.129, 134), along
1:26. Election by hand thus implied the conscious pref- with the 4 grades determined according to time in the
erence of one’s peers, in contrast to both the choice of order (at 2.150)—not according to caste. He mentions
fate (Aristotle, Ath. pol. 54.3; Lucian, Nav. 29; Plutarch, priests, remarkably given his own proud membership in
Flam. 16.6) and leadership by assumed or inherited class, the priesthood, only in connection with blessings over
caste, or clique. food in this passage (War 2.131) and more generally in
It is unclear how this system of elected officials (see connection with food preparation at Ant. 18.22. Priests
also next note) relates to the 4-phase seniority system do not figure in any hierachical structure among Jose-
(“according to the duration of their training”) indicated at phus’ Essenes.
781
the symmetrical counterpart, 2.150. Did senior members This word (ἀδιαίρετος in plural) occurs only here
(there) take direction from elected curators or managers in Josephus. It has strong philosophical and mystical
(here) of lesser seniority? The problem is resolvable if connotations: Aristotle uses it hundreds of times, Philo
Josephus describes here the practices of full members dozens. This atmosphere of complete harmony, albeit
only—a status achieved only in the fourth year of asso- without the use of this word, is matched by Josephus’
ciation (2.138)—and if the 4 grades of 2.150, according presentation of Judean culture as a whole in Apion 2.170,
to time in the order, refer to members in various phases 179, 294.
782
of initiation. At Ant. 18.22 the text seems to imply that Or “assigned by all” (πρὸς ἁπάντων): for the syn-
both the community’s financial administrators and its tax cf. Smyth § 1695. This rather poetic sentence, featur-
priests—whose tasks appear confined to food prepara- ing two strong words unique in Josephus’ lexicon, lacks
tion—are elected. See the next note. an explicit verb to clarify the meaning. This contributes
780
A phrase very close to this one (οἱ τῶν κοινῶν to an air of solemnity.
783
ἐπιµεληταί) is in Diodorus (34/35.2.19): οἱ καθ’ ἕκαστον Josephus’ choice of verb (µετοικέω) suggests “set-
ἐπιµεληταὶ τῶν κοινῶν. The word ἐπιµελητής is used tling alongside” as aliens or foreigners (cf. “metics” in
often by Plato for the various kinds of official needed Greek cities), thus not belonging in the same way as
in his ideal state, alongside the Guardians of the laws native or ordinary citizens. This makes sense in view of
(νοµοφύλακες, Leg. 640d, 755d, 758e, 760e, 764c, 765d, their highly regimented communities attached to these
766b, 772a, 801d, 813c, 847c, 848e, 929d, 951e; Resp. cities.
784
424b), also by Xenophon of certain officials appointed Compare Philo (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11.
by Cyrus (Cyr. 8.1.9). Of all possible forms of leader- [379a]): “They live in many cities of Judea, and also
ship, that by such curators, guardians, or “care-givers” is in many villages and large, populous groups.” In Prob.
a token of communities who are thus free from the des- 76, by contrast, Philo says that the Essenes flee the cit-
potism of kings and tyrants (cf. Philo, Prob. 45). In War ies because of their wickedness, preferring village life,
2.129 the Essene curators (ἐπιµεληταί) are responsible agriculture, and crafts. According to Ant. 18.19, agricul-
for assigning tasks and maintaining the daily schedule; ture is the Essenes’ sole occupation, which would also
at 2.134 Josephus claims that without orders from these support locations outside away from cities in the proper
curators (µὴ τῶν ἐπιµελητῶν προσταξάντων) the Ess- sense. Nevertheless, in Josephus’ narratives individual
enes will do nothing except render help and offer pity. In Essenes appear only in the Jerusalem area: War 1.78 (cf.
that same passage, with his typical concern to vary his Ant. 13.311); 2.113, 567 (a member of the order? Cf.
diction, he uses the word ἐπίτροποι (“managers, those 3.11); 5.1145; Ant. 15.371-78.
entrusted”—also his usual term for Judean procurators In spite of Josephus’ distinction between cities and
in the War ; cf. the note at 2.117) for the same men. See villages in some cases (e.g., Life 188), he can also use
the previous note for the relation between these officials the word “city” (πόλις) very loosely: at Life 123, Gabara
and the seniority-based grades of 2.150. in Galilee is a large city, at 229 a mere village. Similarly,
In sharp contrast to the DSS, which feature (a) an in- such small towns as Gischala (War 4.2, 92), Iotapata (War
dividual community leader known as the ‫“( מבקר‬guard- 3.111-12, 289 [also Iapha]; Life 332, though a village at
ian”: 1QS 6.12, 20; CD 9.18-22; 13.11, 16; 15.8-14) or Life 188), and Gamala (War 2.568; 4.2, 12; Ant. 18.4)
‫“( פקיד‬official”: 1QS 6.14; CD 14.6; cf. Beall 1988: are called cities in some places; at Life 235 Josephus
46-47) as well as (b) group-rankings based on caste claims that Galilee alone held 204 “cities and villages.”
(priests, Levites, and others, possibly Israelites and pros- The main point here seems to be not that the Essenes
104 book two

members785 who arrive from elsewhere, all that the community has is laid out for them in
the same way as if they were their own things, and they go in and stay with those they
have never even seen before as if they were the most intimate friends.786 125 For this
reason they make trips without carrying any baggage at all—though armed787 on account
of the bandits.788 In each city a steward789 of the order appointed specially for the visitors
is designated quartermaster790 for clothing and the other amenities.
126 Dress791 and also deportment of body: like children being educated with fear.792
They replace neither clothes nor footwear until the old set is ripped all over or worn

live in cities, in contrast to other kinds of settlement, ticiple, which functions here as an official function, in
but only that they have no single center, with established Josephus. Cf. Demosthenes, Mid. 174; Tim. 15; Diony-
communities in many places. This point serves Josephus’ sius, Ant. rom. 10.44; esp. Plutarch, Luc. 37.1; Tib. Gai.
aim (see Excursus) of presenting the group as typical Gracc. 23.9; Cic. 1.6; 17.2; Mor. [Praec.] 806d; note the
of widespread Judean values; they are not a small and cognate ταµίαι in Eusebius’ preervation of Philo (Praep.
obscure group of philosophical heroes. It is developed ev. 8.11 [380a]) and, without official connotations, at
in the following sentences, according to which the Ess- War 2.135.
791
enes configure their communities in the expectation of Or “equipment, gear”: Josephus uses καταστολή
constant travel and visitors. only here. Before his time it is attested only in the Hip-
This distribution of Essenes throughout Judea, with- pocratic corpus, Diodorus (15.94.3), Aristonicus (Sign.
out a center, stands in some tension with Pliny’s location Il. ad 2.193), Aristeas (284-85), Musonius Rufus (3.68),
of Esseni to the W of the Dead Sea (Nat. 5.73; cf. Excur- and 1 Tim 2:9. It becomes more popular with his con-
sus), though Pliny does not necessarily locate all or most temporaries Plutarch (Per. 5.1), Epictetus (Arrian, Diatr.
Essenes there (NB: Latin lacks the definite article)—and 2.10.15, 21.11), and 2nd-century writers.
792
in any case he may be mistaken as he is about much Greek τοῖς µετὰ φόβου παιδαγωγουµένοις.
Judean geography (see Excursus on Essenes). The plain The participle refers to the role of child-rearing ordi-
statements of Philo and Josephus, apparently indepen- narily entrusted in the Greek world to a pedagogue
dent in this respect, also pose a problem for the classic (παιδαγωγός), who assumed general responsibility for
version of the Qumran-Essene hypothesis, which made an upper-class child’s care and education, partly as an
Khirbet Qumran the Essene base, though some advocates intermediary between other teachers and the parents
of the hypothesis have dramatically revised this claim (e.g., Xenophon, Lac. 2.1). He also protected the child
(e.g. Stegemann 1992: 161). from sexual or other interference and would typically
785
See the note to “members” at 2.119. assist with homework and memory drills. Although the
786
Cf. Mark 6:10-11; Matt 10:10-11; Luke 9:3-5; apostle Paul famously describes being under a peda-
10:3-7, where Jesus similarly instructs his followers to gogue’s care as a form of slavery (Gal 4:1-2), upper-class
travel without food, money, or extra clothing, and to find children by no means always lived in fear of their peda-
accommodation and food in strangers’ homes. gogues: cf. (much later) Libanius, Or. 58. Pedagogues
787
Diogenes the Cynic, paradigm of the simplest pos- had above all to be trusted by the parents to protect the
sible life, reportedly carried a staff in his travels during child’s interests. Cf. Cribiore 2001: 47-50, and in the 4th-
later life (Diogenes Laertius 6.23)—and put it to effec- cent. CE the emperor Julian’s tribute to his pedagogue
tive use (6.32). According to Mark 6:8, a staff was the (Misopogon 351a).
only accessory that Jesus permitted his followers when Xenophon implies that it was the absence of peda-
they traveled, though Matt 10:10 and Luke 9:3 forbid gogues in Sparta (see previous note) that produced an
even this. education in fear: boys were trained instead with whips
788
Although the term “bandit” (λῃστής) is often used (Lac. 2.2-6). That seems closer to the image of strict
by Josephus in rhetorical ways to attack political enemies discipline among Josephus’ (adult) Essenes. As a paral-
(see notes to “chief bandit” at 2.56 and to “banditry” at lel, note the Spartan requirement of disciplined dress
2.142), mundane banditry was also a standard feature and deportment from its young men: “on the roads, he
of the 1st-century Judean landscape; note the situation [Lycurgus] ordered them to keep the hands inside the
assumed by Josephus’ parable of the good Samaritan cloak, to proceed in silence, and not to be looking around
(Luke 10:30) and cf. Isaac 1984; Shaw 1984; Grünewald but to stare ahead in front of their feet” (Xenophon, Lac.
1999. 3.4). But the standard posture of modesty advocated for
789
See the note at 2.14. children by pedagogues was similarly to walk with the
790
Or “controller” (= Latin quaestor): Greek ταµι- head lowered: cf. Xenophon, Lac. 3.4; Plutarch, Mor.
εύων. This is the only occurrence of the present par- [Virt. doc.] 439f; Lucian, Amor. 44; Cribiore 2001: 49.
book two 105

through with age.793 127 Among themselves, they neither shop for nor sell anything;794
but each one, after giving the things that he has to the one in need, takes in exchange795
anything useful that the other has. And even without this reciprocal giving,796 the transfer
to them [of goods] from whomever they wish is unimpeded.797
(8.5) 128 Toward the Deity, at least:798 pious observances799 uniquely [expressed].800 Be- Essene life:
fore the sun rises,801 they utter nothing of the mundane things,802 but only certain ancestral daily regimen
prayers803 to him,804 as if begging805 him to come up.806

802
Again, Josephus writes artfully, without verbs. Greek βέβηλος occurs regularly in War (4.182;
793
Cf. the Spartan practice of going without the stan- 5.16; 6.271), where it regularly contrasts with sacred
dard Greek tunic, receiving only one simple outer cover- things as here, and Antiquities (3.181; 12.38, 320;
ing (ἱµάτιον) each year (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 15.90).
803
237b). Indeed, the rough Spartan cloak (τρίβων) had For the phrase (πατρίους εὐχάς) see Ant. 14.260
become the distinctive garb of the philosopher (Hadot and Pindar, Pyth. 4.98; Aeschines, Tim. 23; Philo, Somn.
1998: 7-8). 1.215; Mos. 2.133.
794 804
Cf. Plutarch on the Spartiates: they are forbidden The phrase εἰς αὐτὸν must mean “to, towards the
to sell anything, but freely take from their neighbors sun” because the pronoun is masculine, whereas the pre-
when in need (Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 238f). ceding “Deity” is neuter. Josephus’ comments on Essene
795
This is the only occurrence of the compound verb reverence for the sun (see also 2.148: Essenes are mod-
ἀντικοµίζω in Josephus. It is attested before him only in est when defecating “so as not to outrage the rays of
Aristonicus (Sign. Il. ad 17.126), though Plutarch (Lys. God”) have long puzzled interpreters, especially those
26.2) and Appian (Bell. civ. 4.9.70) will also use it. who read this passage in light of the DSS. Vitucci (626
796
This word (ἀντίδοσις) occurs only here in Jose- n. 7) charges Josephus with a certain “improprietà di
phus. linguaggio,” by giving the impression that the Essenes
797
Once again Josephus writes a sentence without a worshipped the sun. Normally, Josephus’ remarks are
main verb. either flattened to match the Scrolls’ “prayers at dawn”
798
The qualification seems useful because piety (Beall 1988: 52-54) or they are taken encourage arbitrary
(εὐσέβεια) could be directed towards parents, elders, source theories (e.g., Bergmeier 1993: 84), on the ground
city leaders as well as to the Gods. See references in that no faithful Judean could speak thus. After all, the
next note. Temple Scroll intensifies the biblical prohibition of sun-
799
Piety (εὐσέβεια and cognates) expressed toward worship, on pain of death by stoning (11QT 55.15-21;
the Deity (πρὸς τὸ θεῖον or τὸν θεόν) is a characteristic cf. Deut 17:2-5; Ezek 8:16-19). We ought, however, to
expression of Josephus, not found in other authors to read this passage in light of Josephus’ narrative themes
anywhere near the same degree; it is typically paired and audience.
with justice toward humanity as a summary of human Elsewhere Josephus tends to personify the sun and
ethical obligation. See the notes at 2.139 on the first two to see it as a representation of God. Later he will claim
Essene vows and Mason 1991: 85-90. that the Zealots “polluted the Deity” by leaving corpses
800
This is another sentence lacking a verb. unburied beneath the sun (War 4.382-83; cf. 3.377;
801
Like many ancient writers, Josephus commonly 4.317), and his Titus will vow to bury the memory of
uses the ἀνίσχω form of ἀνέχω for the sun’s rising: Jerusalem’s cannibalism so that “the sun cannot look
War 5.160; 7.281; Ant. 4.305; 6.79. But the only author upon it” (War 6.217). In Ant. 1.282-83, God parallels
before Josephus to use this particular sort of phrase (πρὶν his watching over the earth with the sun’s: Abraham’s
with ἥλιος and infinitive ἀνασχεῖν), which Josephus has children “shall fill all that the sun beholds of earth and
several times in his works (also Ant. 3.79, 199; 6.76; see. . . . for it is I who am watching over all that you
937), appears to be Philo in his portrait of the Essenes will do. . . .” Moses positions the tabernacle, the house
as quoted by Eusebius (Praep. ev. 8.11 [379d]), though of God (3.100), to catch the sun’s first rays (3.115). He
Philo does not not have them praying to the sun. Still, directs the Israelites to create an altar oriented towards
the coincidence of language is surprising enough that the sun (4.305). The high priest’s upper garment is woven
one must suspect influence of Josephus’ word usage on with gold to represent the ever-present rays of the sun
Eusebius (Josephus’ dependence upon Philo is unlikely (3.184). Cf. 4.114; 6.76, 216; 8.49; 9.225. Though oth-
given the frequency of this usage in Antiquities: it is erwise elaborating the biblical portrait of King Josiah’s
Josephus’ own) or cross-fertilization of MSS. Much of reforms (Ant. 10.268-70; cf. 2 Kgs 23:19-20), Josephus
Josephus’ language throughout War 2, not only in the tellingly omits Josiah’s destruction of horses and chariots
Essene passage, is conspicuously “Philonic.” that had been dedicated to the sun (cf. 2 Kgs 23:11).
106 book two

129 After these things, they are dismissed by the curators807 to the various crafts808
that they have each come to know, and after they have worked strenuously until the fifth
hour they are again assembled in one area, where they belt on linen covers and wash their
bodies in frigid water.809 After this purification810 they gather in a private hall,811 into which

It seems significant, then, that he also turns the phrase of Apollo (see 2.81 above and notes). To the W of the
of 1 Macc 9.10, “Far be it from me to do this deed!” Palatine was the Circus Maximus, with its Egyptian
into “May the sun not look upon such a thing” (12.424), obelisk from Heliopolis standing on the central spina,
and has Marc Antony speak of the sun’s looking away dedicated by Augustus to Sol in 10 BCE to (CIL 6.701);
from the murder of Julius Caesar (14.309; cf. 16.99, 108; cf. Champlin 2003: 118-20. Augustus was said to have
18.46; Apion 1.306). Josephus’ portrayal of the Essenes been fathered by Apollo (Suetonius, Aug. 5), to whom
thus matches his general tendencies. also he dedicated at least two temples. Most impressive
Certainly, Essene reverence for the sun would have was Nero’s extraordinary program, just a decade before
been highly resonant for a Greco-Roman audience. Sun Josephus was writing in Rome, of suffusing his reign
worship was widespread through the near and far E, with the imagery of Apollo (from 59 CE) and then Sol
already since the emergence of Akhenaten (“glory of (from 64); see Champlin 2003: 112-44. Nero’s associa-
the [sun-disk] Aten”) as Egyptian Pharaoh in the 18th tion of himself with Apollo and Sol did not tarnish their
Dynasty (14th cent. BCE). In early Greece, the informal prestige; it was Vespasian, in 75 CE, who finally raised
worship of Helios (the Sun) was common, and is partly the colossal statue of Sol near the site of the Colosseum
reflected in the popularity of the name Heliodorus (“gift (Dio 66.15.1). The native Roman God Sol Indiges would
of the sun”); the pre-socratic philosopher Anaxagoras’ eventually be eclipsed by the Syrian import Sol Invictus
claim that the sun was merely a red-hot mass caused out- (the Unconquered Sun), who remained dominant from
rage (Diogenes Laertius 2.12). Hesiod (Op. 339) men- the 3rd century until the rise of Christianity in the 4th.
tions offering sacrifices at the rising and the setting of Julian’s short-lived reversal of the Christian trend was
the sun (the “holy light”), and Plato speaks of Socrates’ reflected in part by his Hymn to King Helios, which gives
praying to the sun (Sym. 220d; cf. Leg. 887d-e on the at least a sense of what philosophically informed rever-
commonality of this practice, and Albinus, Epit. doctr. ence for the sun would sound like.
805
Plat. 14.6). The prestige of the sun for philosophers was The verb ἱκετεύω (“entreat, approach as suppli-
helped along by the Stoic Cleanthes’ (early 3rd-cent. BCE) cant”) is common in Josephus, with many of its more
identification of it with the driving principle of the world than one 100 occurrences relating to God—supporting
(τὸ ἡγεµονικὸν τοῦ κόσµου, Diogenes Laertius 7.139; the impression both here and at 2.148 (the symmetrical
cf. Philo, Opif. 116; Somn. 187). Incidentally, the Spar- parallel) that Josephus means to suggest a kind of sun
tan Lycurgus is said to have established his constitution worship on the part of the Essenes.
806
under the tutelage of Delphic Apollo (increasingly iden- The verb is ἀνατέλλω, which Josephus changes
tified with Helios), and reverence for Apollo remained from “rise” (ἀνίσχω) earlier in this section, presumably
customary among the Spartans (Herodotus 1.65; Plato, for characteristic variatio.
807
Leg. 674d; Xenophon, Ages. 1.34; 2.15, 17; Lac. 8.5). See the notes to “hand-elected” and “affairs” at
In utopian literature after Alexander, sun worship had a 2.123.
808
prominent role, inspired by Plato’s Atlantis (Criti. 113b- Or “skills, trades.” The reference to trades is also
121c, esp. 115b), by the travel narrative of Iambulus significant because Josephus considers participation in
to an Island of the Sun (Diodorus 2.55-60), and by the trades (τέχναι) and agriculture (γεωργία) the admirable
Sacred Inscription of Euhemerus, in which the Sacred peace-time activity of all Judeans (cf. Apion 2.293). It
Isle (Panchaia) was associated with the sun (Diodorus is hardly coincidental that according to Ant. 18.19 the
5.41.4ff; cf. Ferguson 1975: 104-6). The nationalist Per- Essenes engage in the other side of this pair, agricul-
gamene rebel Aristonicus (2nd-cent. BCE) may have been ture—also the ideal pursuit according to Roman tradition
influenced by Iambulus in calling his followers “sun- (Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 2.1; 3.1-4). Cf. Philo on Essenes
citizens” (Strabo 14.38.1). Cf. Ferguson 1975: 104-6, who engage in agriculture (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11
127, 144. [379d]).
809
Sun worship was encouraged by the widespread iden- Greek: ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶµα ψυχροῖς ὕδασιν—an
tification of the sun with Apollo (Euripides, Phaethon act of purification (ἁγνεία), as the next sentence says.
225; Horace, Saec. 9), especially in Rome. A constant Josephus himself was no stranger to the purificatory cold
reminder of this, at least until the great fire of 64 CE, bath. He boasts in Life 11 that when he was with Bannus
was the representation of Sol-Helios driving his sun- he “bathed frequently in frigid water, day and night, for
chariot above the pediment of Augustus’ Palatine temple purification” (ψυχρῷ ὕδατι . . . πρὸς ἁγνείαν). Else-
book two 107

none of those who hold different views812 may enter: now pure themselves, they approach
the dining room813 as if it were some [kind of] sanctuary.814 130 After they have seated
themselves815 in silence, the baker serves the loaves in order,816 whereas the cook serves
each person one dish of one food.817 131 The priest offers a prayer before818 the food, and
it is forbidden to taste anything before the prayer; when he has had his breakfast he offers
another concluding prayer. While starting and also while finishing, then, they honor819 God

where he explains that Judeans who experience noctur- is the same structure as the private hall (or special build-
nal emissions plunge into cold water the next day (Ant. ing) just mentioned, or a room within it.
814
3.263). Josephus chooses generic language (καθάπερ εἰς
810
See the previous note: washing is typically for ἅγιόν τι τέµενος), readily intelligible to his audience.
purification. Given that novices are admitted to the Although τέµενος was the standard Greek term for a
“purer of the waters for purification” only after 1 year sanctuary, War uses it sparingly (9 times, 4 of which
and approved for the community after two more (2.138), are in bk. 7) and usually of a foreign precinct (so 1.403;
it seems that this description applies only to those of 2.210; 7.158, 429, 434 [the last two at Leontopolis]; War
(at least) the second phase. Josephus’ John the Baptist, 4.388; 5.5; 7.377 are exceptions). In Antiquities it occurs
note, gives a different twist to the process of purification chiefly in descriptions of the first and second temples.
by water when he insists that baptism is a purification In relation to the Jerusalem temple, Josephus most often
(also ἁγνεία) for the body only, presupposing the prior speaks of the sacred precinct or temple area (τὸ ἱερόν)
cleansing of the soul (Ant. 18.117). or the central shrine building (ναός).
811 815
Greek ἴδιον οἴκηµα could have several meanings: Greek καθίζω continues to set the stage for
“private, personal, special, distinct, peculiar, or ordinary” the following portrait of uprightness and discipline at
+ “building, residence, chamber, room, structure, or hall.” the Essene table: they have no inclination to recline
The point seems to be not that it is a private residence (κατακλίνω, ἀνακλίνω) on dining couches, as their
(where such communal dining would be implausible) contemporaries normally did for main meals, a posture
but that it is not a public building or temple in the city lending itself to the many forms of crudeness associated
(though they regard it “as if it were some sacred pre- with the triclinium. Although it could serve as another
cinct”), open to the uninitiated (see next note), and in term for “recline” in certain contexts (Xenophon, Cyr.
no way like familiar dining rooms (because no noise or 8.4.2; Josephus, Ant. 13.75-76), Josephus normally uses
carousal, below). For the contrast between private and this verb in contexts of grand, formal, or even pompous
public (i.e., temple) spaces (e.g., οὔτε τὰ ἱρὰ οὔτε τὰ sittings, as of a king or governor on his throne (Ant.
ἴδια) see Herodotus 6.9.3; 8.109.3. 7.356, 358, 382; 8.2, 7, 399; 9.156), in a chariot (9.114),
812
This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the or on a bema (War 2.172; 3.532 [Vespasian]; 20.130), or
adjective (here plural) ἑτερόδοξος, which occurs before for the seating of a council (Ant. 20.202, 216; Life 236,
and around his time only in philosophical contexts, as 368). At War 2.25 Gaius was thus “seated” in Augustus’
here: Plato, Theaet. 190e, 193d; Philo, Sobr. 68; Migr. council.
816
175; Her. 247; Spec. 2.193; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.19; Josephus uses the phrase ἐν τάξει only 4 times in
Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 2.6, 118; Math. 164, 187, 258, his corpus. That it appears twice in the Essene passage
365; Lucian, Eun. 2. Medical applications come in (cf. 2.132) is no accident: it reinforces the quasi-military
the 2nd century with Galen and Soranus. The Spartans “order” vocabulary. See the note to “order” at 2.122.
817
famously avoided contact with outsiders, whether by Compare the famous communal meals of the Spar-
traveling abroad or by receiving foreign guests who tans, which Lycurgus established to preclude over-eating
might contaminate their ways—except in the rare cases and to enforce a simple diet (Plutarch, Lyc. 10.1-2); see
in which the visitors were willing to adopt the Spartan also the next section on Essene dinners.
818
regimen (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 238e). Josephus apparently coins the double-compound
813
Curiously, given the frequent occurrence of the verb, προκατεύχοµαι: it occurs only here in his writ-
verb δειπνεῖν (to dine), Greek δειπνητήριον occurs only ings, and is attested earlier only in the fragments of the
here in Josephus and is not attested in literature before 4th-cent. BCE Alcidamas’ Rivalry (Certamen) between
him, though his younger contemporary Plutarch (Luc. Homer and Hesiod (Frag. 5.41). Otherwise, it appears
41.5) has it. Possibly Josephus wishes to emphasize, with only in quotations of this passage (Porphyry, Eusebius)
a somewhat clinical word, that this is merely a place for before the 9th century CE.
819
the group to eat, utterly free of the associations of the The verb γεραίρω occurs only here in Josephus.
triclinium, where diners recline for banquet-like meals Before Josephus, the writers who most characteristically
and entertainment. It is unclear whether this dining room use this word to speak of honoring God (or the Gods) are
108 book two

as the sponsor of life.820 At that, laying aside their clothes as if they were holy, they apply
themselves to their labors again until evening.
132 They dine in a similar way: when they have returned, they sit down with the vis-
tors, if any happen to be present with them, and neither yelling821 nor disorder822 pollutes823
the house at any time, but they yield conversation to one another in order.824 133 And to
those from outside, the silence of those inside825 appears as a kind of shiver-inducing826
mystery.827 The reason for this is their continuous sobriety828 and the rationing of food and
drink829 among them—to the point of fullness.830

Dionysius (Ant. rom. 1.88.3; 2.23.4; 11.14.3) and Philo only in War , in connection with the horrors perpetrated
(Sacr. 117; Her. 110; Spec. 1.272; 2.132, 134, 209). by the rebels in Jerusalem: 5.435, 438; 6.199. Curi-
820
The word “sponsor” (χορηγός) means first of all ously, given Josephus’ relatively generous usage and
“chorus-leader” and then “chorus-subsidizer”: the one the extreme popularity of the word group in the Church
who foots the bill for the show. It is therefore an ironic Fathers, it is very sparsely attested before his time: Cal-
way to speak of God’s furnishing life. Although this way limachus, Aetia, frag. 75; LXX Jer 5:30; 18:3; 23:14;
of speaking about God will appeal to some later writ- Wis 6:5; 8:15; Ezekiel Trag., Exag. [Snell] lines 197,
ers (e.g., Plotinus, Enn. 4.2.2, 7.3; 6.9.9; Themistius, 219—mainly texts in the Judean tradition. Plutarch, how-
Philanthr. 229a; Eusebius, Const. Or. 26.2), it seems ever, begins to use it: Cor. 18.4; Cic. 49.2; Arat. 32.3;
attested before Josephus only in a remark in Plato’s Laws Num. 10.6.
827
(665a), according to which Apollo and the Muses have Aside from the ironic usage at War 1.470, of
been provided by the Gods as “choir-leaders.” In Ant. Herod’s son Antipater’s bizarre life, Josephus always uses
6.342, however, Josephus will again speak of God with µυστήριον in connection with a mystery cult or rite (Ant.
this language, as “producer of good things.” 19.30, 71, 104—of Gaius Caligula’s penchant for his own
821
Josephus uses κραυγή only in War 1-7, but he mystery cult; Apion 2.189, 266). In Apion 2.189, signifi-
does so 24 times, a striking example here of War ’s char- cantly, he compares Judean culture as a whole, because
acteristic language. it is more permanently and successfully executed, to a
822
For the latter term (θόρυβος), see the note at 1.4. mystery cult of another nation. Such a comparison across
This pair of words (κραυγὴ καὶ θόρυβος), a natural com- categories is not standard; the point seems to be that
bination for orators—Demosthenes, Con. 5; Aeschines, even a small, devoted group of another nation could not
Ctes. 122; Dio Chrysostom 7.23; 30.42—turns up also produce what this entire nation of Judeans has.
828
in War 3.493; 6.255-56. Before Josephus it was favored This word (νῆψις) appears only here in Josephus.
by Polybius (3.51.9; 5.15.5; 15.30.3; 16.3.14; 38.12.4) It is attested in only 3 writers before his time, all of
and Diodorus (13.87.5, 95.4; 14.74.4; 18.67.1; 20.29.7, whom were likely inspirations (Polybius 6.1.4; Philo,
65.2); see also Dionysius, Demosth. 12. Josephus’ con- Ebr. 129, 152; Leg. 3.82; Strabo 7.3.11; 15.3.20); it
temporary Plutarch uses the pair extensively: Cam. 42.3; provides further evidence of the “Philonic” character of
Fab. Max. 22.4; Alc. 31.3; Aem. Paul. 18.9; Phoc. 33.9; Josephus’ language throughout War 2.
829
Cat. Min. 44.5; Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 119b. Although it “Food and drink” (τροφή καὶ ποτός) make a pre-
uses different vocabulary, cf. Xenophon’s description of dictable and common pair, though outside of Josephus,
Spartan communal meals: “there, there is little chance of who uses the pair often (War 7.278; Ant. 3.34, 86; 4.45;
outrage, little chance of drunken uproar, little chance of 6.360, 377; 7.159, 274), only Aristotle and Plutarch jux-
shameful behavior or shameful speech” (Lac. 5.6). tapose the words with much frequency.
823 830
“Pollution” is a prominent theme in War (see Intro- The phrase translated “until full” (µέχρι κόρου)
duction): the verb µιαίνω (used here) occurs some 21 turns up also at War 4.465 in a different context. This
times in this work (all cognates, 36 times), 17 times else- suggests that it does not come from a source on the Ess-
where in Josephus. See the note to “polluted” at 2.210. enes, for it is otherwise is attested only in Josephus’ older
824
The repitition of this phrase (ἐν τάξει; cf. 2.130) is contemporary Cornutus (53) and later in Galen (Hipp.
hardly accidental, but helps reinforce the sense of order libr. vi epidem. comm. 17b.198 [Wenkebach]), Achilles
and calm. Tatius (Leuc. Clit. 1.6.1), and a few Christian authors of
825
Cf. Xenophon (Lac. 3.5) on the quiet atmosphere late antiquity. This portrait of the Essenes also matches
of Spartan communal meals: “it is a precious thing with Josephus’ emphasis on the restraint of Judean sacrificial
them if they even answer something that is asked.” meals in general, in contrast to those of other nations
826
The word φρικτός will appear again in Josephus (Apion 2.195). The Spartans were similarly famous for
book two 109

(8.6) 134 Whereas, then, in these other matters there is nothing that they do without
the curators’831 having ordered it,832 these two things are matters of personal prerogative833
among them: [rendering] assistance and mercy.834 For helping those who are worthy, when-
ever they might need it, and also extending food to those who are in want are indeed left
up to the individual; but in the case of the relatives, such distribution is not allowed to be
done without [permission from] the managers.835
135836 Of anger, just controllers;837 as for temper, able to contain it;838 of fidelity,
masters;839 of peace, servants.840
And whereas everything spoken by them is more forceful than an oath, swearing itself
they avoid,841 considering it worse than the false oath;842 for they declare to be already

their impressive restraint in food and drink: Lycurgus ungovernable or unrestrainable passions, lusts, or yearn-
ordered that they receive just enough, not too much or ings (Xenophon, Mem. 4.1.3-4; Philo, Agr. 84; Migr.
too little (Xenophon, Lac. 5.3-4; Plutarch, Lyc. 10.1-2). Abr. 132; Somn. 1.36, 122; Jos. 40, 154; Spec. 2.9, 94;
831
On these curators, see the notes to “hand-elected” 4.82). Although Galen (typically with ἡ δύναµις, the
and “affairs” at 2.123. “power, faculty”: Loc. aff. 8.369, 371, 401, 440; Hip-
832
The discipline of always voluntarily living under pocr. pror. 16.710.10, 719.3; Hippocr. epid.17a.558.8,
orders (inasmuch as the leaders are elected: 2.123) recalls 705.11, etc.) and Artemidorus (2.14, 47; 3.33, 35; 4.5,
the Spartan regimen that Xenophon describes: “But in 57) will begin to favor the “active” and positive form of
Sparta even the most powerful men show particular def- the adjective (καθεκτικός, “able to constrain, contain,
erence to the magistrates, and pride themselves on being check”) in the 2nd century CE (cf. also Athenaeus, Deipn.
humble, and when they are called they run—and do not 3.91 [Kaibel]), before Josephus this form is found only
walk—to obey” (Xenophon, Lac. 8.1-4). Cf. Plutarch, in Aristotle (Hist. anim. 635b.3; Probl. 963a.21; Top.
Mor. 212c: when asked why the Spartans were the hap- 125b.18).
839
piest of all nations, King Agesilaus replied: “Because The 5th (or 4th) oath sworn by the Essenes, according
more than the others they cultivate both ruling and being to 2.140, is to keep faith (τὸ πιστόν) with all, especially
ruled.” those in power. Contrast women, according to 2.121:
833
The adjective αὐτεξούσιος (“in one’s power”) is a none of them is able to maintain fidelity or loyalty.
840
favorite of Josephus’. Although he has it some 10 times This description serves Josephus’ narrative aims
(also War 2.288; 3.86, 184; 5.556; Ant. 4.146; 15.266; perfectly. Unlike the reckless rebel tyrants, whose hot-
16.46; Apion 2.173), and it will be widely employed by headed behaviour precipitated the revolt, the Essenes
the church fathers, it is barely attested before his time, always keep their composure with dignity and peace-
and mainly in Philo (Legat. 183; Cher. 88; Plant. 46; ful action. Unlike the traitorous, lying rebels, they do
Ebriet. 44; Jos. 148; Spec. 1.14; 2.82; Alleg. 3.73; Virt. not break faith. They are the best examples of the ideal
210; Her. 85, 301; Prob. 57; Quaest. gen. 4, frag. 51b; Judean temperament. “Peace” (εἰρήνη) is a favourite
cf. Chrysippus, Frag. log. phys. frag. 990; Diodorus word of Josephus’: t he noun appears 106 times alone.
14.105.4; Dorotheus, Frag. gr. 390; Epictetus, Diatr. “Temper” (θυµός) is particularly frequent in the War (39
2.2.3). of its 57 occurrences), where Josephus regularly cites it
834
Or “pity” (ἔλεος). as a vice of the rebels. “Able to restrain,” or καθεκτ-
835
Greek ἐπίτροποι, evidently used interchangeably words, occur only in the War (2.12; 5.20).
841
(for variety) with ἐπιµεληταί (curators) at the beginning According to Ant. 15.371, King Herod excused the
of this section; see the note to “affairs” at 2.123. Essenes from the general oath of loyalty, though their
836
The taut, verbless style of this sentence and many refusal to swear oaths is not given as the reason there.
842
of those following fits its austere philosophical subject, Greek ἐπιορκία. A paradoxical statement: making
calling to mind similarly terse passages in Marcus Aure- an oath (ὅρκος) is worse than breaking one. Whereas the
lius’ Meditations (e.g., 1.1-17). common assumption that oath-breaking is bad presup-
837
See note to “quartermaster” at 2.125. poses that oaths should be made (and kept), the Essenes
838
This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the reject the very resort to oaths. It is a noteworthy feature
adjectival form καθεκτικός, and he has καθεκτ- words of War (and Antiquities-Life) that those who use oaths to
only in the War (also 2.12; 5.20). Before his time the confirm their word are the least trustworthy (War 1.260
root καθεκτ- occurs most often in moral contexts and [Parthians]; 2.451-53 [the Judean rebels]; 4.214-15 [John
especially in Philo, with a negative prefix on the passive of Gischala]; Ant. 1.323 [Laban]; Life 101-2, 275 [John
form of the root (δυσκάθεκτος, ἀκάθεκτος) referring to of Gischala, “oath-breaker”]). Therefore, Josephus’ Ess-
110 book two

degraded one who is unworthy of belief without resorting to God.843

136 They are extraordinarily keen about the compositions844 of the ancients,845 selecting
especially those [oriented] toward the benefit of soul and body.846 On the basis of these and
for the treatment of diseases,847 roots,848 apotropaic849 materials, and the special properties
of stones850 are investigated.851

enes embody his own narrative perspective in preferring 9th book of his Research into Plants (9.8.1) on the studies
to speak honorably without the need of oaths. At Ant. of predecessors known as “root-diggers” (ῥιζοτόµοι). He
3.92, he has Moses restrict oath-making to important observes (9.8.1): “The powers of roots are many and for
matters, a limitation that both explains his (and his Ess- many [purposes], but the medicinal ones are especially
enes’) condemnation of casual oath-making and allows sought out as being the most useful.” Josephus’ contem-
the truly awesome Essene oaths that follow in 2.139-42. porary Pliny the Elder included in his Natural History,
843
Perhaps in the sense “without resort to God.” published in Rome in the 70s, detailed studies of plants
The observation is humorous: if one cannot be believed as remedies, and this section of his work (Nat. 24-28)
without invoking God, then one is in a sorry position. A is filled with references to specific roots (radices) as
similar point is made by Matthew’s Jesus: 5:33-37. The ingredients in the cures. At War 7.1178-85 (esp. 185)
phrase δίχα θεοῦ is unattested before Josephus. This is, Josephus will describe a plant (ruta graveolens; rue) that,
however, the 1st of 3 occurrences in War 2 (also 2.140, though fatal to the touch (he claims), when uprooted
390)—the only examples in this work, in striking prox- and somehow applied to the ill, is a potent means of
imity. Antiquities uses related but more elaborate expres- driving out demons. The “virtues of roots” were among
sions (2.171; 4.60). This phrase offers another example the things of which King Solomon was alleged, in some
of War ’s use of newly fashionable language, for the same Jewish texts, to have deep knowledge: see Wis 7:20 and
phrase appears in Josephus’ contemporaries Plutarch the note to “investigated” in this section.
849
(Cam. 6.3) and Epictetus (Arrian, Diatr. 3.22.2, 53). Or “prophylactic” (ἀλεξητήριος), a word found
844
Possibly “bodies of doctrine, interpretations” only here in Josephus. For the occult connotations of this
(συντάγµατα), though even if so, some kind of written term—the protection includes defense against demons—
object of study seems likeliest. see the note to “investigated” in this section. Given the
845
Given the occult nature of Essene inquiry here, it is Theophrastean context, it is noteworthy that one of the
noteworthy that the closest (roughly contemporary) paral- few authors to use this word is Theophrastus (Hist. plant.
lel to Josephus’ phrase παλαιῶν συντάγµατα is in the 7.13.4), of bulbous plants that keep witch-craft from a
2nd-cent. CE astrologer Vettius Valens’ work (Anth. 3.9.3 home. For other uses of the word: Aeschylus, Sept. Theb.
[Pingree]): παλαιῶν συνταγµατογράφων. The ancients 8 [a title for Zeus]; Euripides, Herc. 470; Xenophon, Eq.
in question evidently include Solomon (see the note to 5.6; Plato, Pol. 279d; the Hippocratic corpus (passim);
“investigated” below), who allegedly wrote much about Nicander, Ther. 7, 100, 714, 934; Dionysius, Ant. rom.
cures through roots and other substances. Beall (1988: 1.27. Cyranides and esp. Galen will use it extensively.
850
70-73) makes a good case for including the pseudepi- For “the special properties of stones” see Theo-
graphical 1 Enoch and Jubilees, since they also mention phrastus, Lap. [a work devoted to stones] 3.5; 41.1; 48.1;
cures through herbs and roots (Jub. 10.10-14; 1 Enoch Galen, Simpl. med. temp. 12.207.2. The combination of
7.1; 8.3; 10.4-8) and they were widely read in the 1 st roots and stones (often involving breaking up stones
century. But there seems no reason to limit these ancients and applying the in some way to certain roots) is found
to Judeans: see the notes to “roots” and “stones” below. frequently in the medical and magical writers of antiq-
Josephus may well have chosen “of the ancients” rather uity, not least among Josephus’ rough contemporaries
than “holy” [compositions] precisely so as to include Dioscorides Pedanius (Eup. simpl. med. 1.133.1; 2.36.4,
such non-canonical material. (On his “canon” see Apion 118.2, 119.4; Mat. med. 1.78.2; 4.91.1; esp. 5.126.3),
1.37-43 and Mason 2002). Cyranides (1.7.19, 8.26, 10.95, 17.16), and Galen (Simpl.
846
The closest parallel phrase appears in Philo (Spec. med. temp. 11.811.4; 12.41.13, 68.7).
851
1.298), who speaks of sleep as a divine gift that works As Thackeray noted, following J. B. Lightfoot (LCL
“to the benefit of both body and soul.” ad loc.), this passage has a close parallel in Ant. 8.44-49.
847
Or “the cure of sufferings” (πρὸς θεραπείαν There Josephus describes one of the most prominent
παθῶν). ancients, Solomon, whom he credits with thousands of
848
The study of roots for curative purposes had a long “compositions” (συντάσσω—8.44-45; cf. συντάγµατα
history in the Greco-Roman world. Aristotle’s prolific here). These record the king’s comprehensive study of
student Theophrastus (4th cent. BCE) based much of the nature and the various properties (ἰδιώµατα) of each
book two 111

(8.7) 137 To those who are eager for their school, the entry-way is not a direct one, but Essene life:
they prescribe a regimen852 for the person who remains outside for a year, giving him a initiation, oaths
little hatchet853 as well as the aforementioned waist-covering854 and white clothing.855 138
Whenever he should give proof of his self-control856 during this period, he approaches
nearer to the regimen857 and indeed shares in the purer waters for purification,858 though
he is not yet received into the functions of communal life.859 For after this demonstration

form (8.44). In particular, they describe the craft (τέχνη) sage comes from Josephus’ preference for a variety of
of exorcism, “for the benefit and treatment (εἰς ὠφέλειαν unusual words with respect to this unique object; such
καὶ θεραπείαν)” of humanity (8.55). Josephus there language could not easily be explained as the ordinary
describes an instance of such therapeia (8.46, twice) diction of a source.
854
that he witnessed. The exorcist used a root (ῥίζα) pre- This περίζωµα is mentioned again (and only) at
scribed by Solomon for the purpose (8.47). By the time 2.161, where Josephus claims that male Essenes who
we read his closing line—he describes Solomon so that marry wear this as covering while bathing (while their
no one under the sun should be ignorant (8.49)—we wives wear full dresses). It was described in different
might conclude that Solomon was an Essene. Cf. the language (linen coverings belted on) in the description
plant (rue) used for exorcisms at War 7.185. Josephus’ of Essene bathing at 2.129.
855
portrait of Solomon as natural scientist is paralleled in According to 2.123 the Essenes always wear white
Wis 7:17-22. (see notes there), though it seems from 2.129, 131 they
852
Greek δίαιτα is a favorite word of Josephus’, lay aside these white clothes for their daily immersion
the word-group occurring some 102 times in his writ- (in a loincloth) and for afternoon work. The loin-cloth
ings. It has many senses (e.g., “resolution [of disputes], and work clothes may also have been white.
856
place of residence, customary food”), but only in a few This basic Essene (and male, Greek-aristocratic,
places does he use it of the disciplined Judean way of and Roman) virtue was introduced at 2.120; see the note
life (e.g., War 2.488; Apion 1.182; 2.173-74, 235; cf. Ant. there.
857
3.280), sometimes in contrast to other peoples’ custom- See the note at 2.137.
858
ary ways of life (e.g., Life 113). In War , 5 of 11 occur- Or “sanctification.” The language here (τῶν πρὸς
rences are concentrated in this Essene passage (2.137, ἁγνείαν ὑδάτων µεταλαµβάνει) seems a clear reference
138, 151, 155, 160); in the parallel school passage of to the purificatory daily bath before luncheon mentioned
Ant. 18.12-22, however, only the Pharisees are described at 2.129 (ἀπολούονται τὸ σῶµα ψυχροῖς ὕδασιν, καὶ
with this word (18.12, 15), though it is a favored word in µετὰ ταύτην τὴν ἁγνείαν), an essential feature of Ess-
Ant. 17-19 in various senses (23 occurrences there). The ene communal life (cf. 2.161).
859
tough Spartan regimen allegedly established by Lycur- The entire phrase renders plural συµβίωσις; this
gus was characteristically called a δίαιτα (Xenophon, is the only plural example in Josephus and the only
Lac. 5.1; Plutarch, Lyc. 11.3; 24.1; Mor. 209f, 210a, occurrence of the noun in War. With 5 examples in
225f, 226f, 227b), and the term was occasionally used total (also Ant. 2.51; 6.210; 15.240, 260—all concerning
for other philosophical lifestyles (Plutarch, Mor. [Virt. male-female cohabitation, in the singular), Josephus is a
vit.] 100d; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.87; Philostratus, Vit. relatively heavy user of the word; is well attested before
Apoll. 5.22). his time only in Aristotle (twice), Polybius (4), Diodo-
853
This diminutive (ἀξινάριον) of ἀξίνη occurs only rus (10), Wisdom of Solomon (3), and Philo (3); his
here in Josephus, and it is not attested before his time, contemporary Plutarch has it 13 times. What he means
though it appears once each in the 2nd-cent. CE lexi- about participating in the baths but not these aspects of
cographers Aelius Dionysius (Att. onom. Z.5) and Pau- communal life is not clear. Did these candidates take the
sanias Atticus (Att. onom. Z.4). At War 2.148, where daily bath but not proceed to the common meal? Since
the purpose of this instrument is explained, Josephus Josephus’ Essenes are found in all Judean cities (2.124),
uses σκαλίς and ἀξινίδιον, both of which also occur perhaps this means that initiates continued living outside
only there in Josephus. The latter is unattested anywhere the community during this period.
else except the 10th-cent. Suda lexicon, which simply According to 1QS 6.14-23, initiates into the DSS
gives it as a synonym for ἀξινάριον here; the former community go through a 2-year initiation marked by (a)
appears before Josephus only in Strabo 3.2.9 (possibly initial interviews for suitability, (b) examination after
from Posidonius). This variety, and especially the use of a year, successful completion of which permits access
two different but extremely rare diminutives of “axe,” to the holy food and reckoning of one’s goods with the
suggest that the unusual vocabulary in the Essene pas- community’s (but not yet mixing), and (c) a final review,
112 book two

of endurance,860 the character is tested for two further years,861 and after he has thus been
shown worthy862 he is reckoned into863 the group.
139 Before he may touch the communal food, however, he swears dreadful oaths864 to
them:865 first, that he will observe piety toward the deity; then, that he will maintain just
actions toward humanity;866 that he will harm no one,867 whether by his own deliberation or

864
completion of which allows access to the community’s Or “shiver-inducing oaths” (ὅρκους . . . φρικώ-
drink and admixture of property. There is a parallel here δεις). Josephus has this collocation twice (cf. Life 101).
to early Christian initiation phases, which became more Although it seems unattested in literature before his
elaborate after the 1st century CE: initial inquiry, instruc- time, it turns up in both his contemporary Plutarch (Alex.
tion, and preliminary examination; catechumenate (asso- 30.11) and later 2nd-cent. authors (Phrynicus, Praep.
ciating with the community for a year or more); rites of soph. 107; Pollux, Onom. 1.37; Dio 8.36.29). This sug-
election (careful scrutiny and perhaps exorcism, separat- gests again that Josephus often selects newly current
ing one from the world); and finally baptism (often at vocabulary and phrasing.
Easter) bringing full membership. It is often proposed (Thackeray in LCL, n. b to 2.135;
860
Greek καρτερία: the most famous trait of the Bergmeier 1993: 69) that Josephus contradicts himself
Spartans and the whole focus of their training (Xeno- by first making a point of the Essenes’ avoidance of
phon, Ages. 5.3; 10.1; 11.9 Plutarch, Mor. [Apoh. lac.] swearing (ὀµνύειν περιίστανται)—on the ground that
208c, 210a, 237a; Lyc. 2.2; 16.5-6; 18.1; 29.5; Ages. every word of theirs is stronger than an oath (2.135)—
11.7; 30.3), emulated by philosophers (cf. Xenophon and now listing a dozen dreadful oaths that they do in
on Socrates, Mem. 1.2.1; 2.1.20; 3.1.6). This is also an fact swear (ὅρκους . . . ὄµνυσι φρικώδεις; 2.139). These
important word-group for Josephus, who uses it about are not contradictory propositions, however, and Jose-
134 times, nearly half of these (63) in War—usually phus’ explanation of Moses’ commandments in Ant. 3.92
concerning the endurance of the Judean fighters or the helps to clarify the matter. There, all Judeans are forbid-
“steadfastness” of their defenses. That καρτερία is the den “to swear by God on a trivial [or base: φαῦλος]
Leitmotif of Josephus’ training of his own Galilean sol- matter.” Although swearing in general is not encouraged,
diers (2.580) shows again that the Essene passage fits this passage implies that it is acceptable to swear oaths in
neatly in War , as exemplary of Judean virtue. Note also cases of rare solemnity. Indeed, Josephus claims that he
Apion 1.182; 2.146, 170, [225], 228, 273, 284, where he inclined to believe the Jerusalem delegation (not to chas-
makes this a distinctive Judean trait. In 3 of these cases tise them for law-breaking) because they swore “the most
(2.225, 228, 273), tellingly, Josephus contrasts the Spar- dreadful oaths that we have” (τοὺς φρικωδεστάτους
tan reputation for endurance with what he presents as the ὅρκους παρ’ ἡµῖν; Life 275; cf. 101). The context of
undeniable Judean fact of it, in light of the recent war. War 2.135 suggests that the prohibition there concerns
On Essene endurance under torture, see further below, the common oath, merely to guarantee one’s word in
2.151-53. ordinary situations. Thus the Essenes’ “steering clear” of
861
Presumably, 2 years from admission to the puri- such swearing would not seem to preclude their making
fying waters. In his opening remarks (2.120) Josephus these life-defining dreadful (φρικώδεις) oaths to God
emphasized that children adopted by the order were upon finally entering the order.
865
trained in its “principles of character”; here the char- Several of the Essene oaths that follow match Jose-
acter is finally tested. On the centrality of character (τὸ phus’ later instructions to his own soldiers in training
ἦθος) in ancient moral philosophy and rhetoric, and for (2.581-82): if they wished to remain allies with God,
Josephus (it is the theme of his Life), see BJP 9: xxxviii-l they must abstain from soldiers’ usual behaviors: theft
and the note at Life 430 in that volume. (κλοπή), banditry (λἦστεία), and inflicting harm or
862
Those Essenes who marry (2.161 below) put their injury (βλαβή).
866
potential wives through a similar ordeal, testing them Greek εὐσεβήσειν τὸ θεῖον, ἔπειτα τὰ πρὸς
through 3 years and as many “purifications.” ἀνθρώπους δίκαια φυλάξειν. Josephus is keenly aware
863
Josephus uses ἐγκρίνω (“judge, deem, or reckon in that, especially after the revolt, Judeans are widely
or among”) only here. The verb is matched at 2.143 by accused of impiety (ἀσέβεια) or atheism in relation to
its opposite: “reckon out” (ἐκκρίνω). This symmetrical the Gods and misanthropy with respect to their fellow
parallel of rare (at least this one: mainly in Plato, some human beings (e.g., Apion 2.148, 291). One of his per-
7 times) and corresponding verbs, on either side of the vasive themes, therefore, from the beginning to the end
intervening 12 oaths, helps to identify that list of oaths of his corpus, is that his people cherish piety toward God
as the central panel or fulcrum in this concentrically and justice (also philanthropy) toward their neighbors—
structured passage. more, indeed, than any other nation. This pair of virtues
book two 113

under order; that he will hate the unjust and contend together with the just;868 140 that he
will always maintain faithfulness to all, especially to those in control, for without God869
it does not fall to anyone to hold office,870 and that, should he hold office,871 he will never

provides his most typical characterization of Israel’s good character (Mem. 4.8.11), which is particularly interest-
leaders: Ant. 7.338, 341 (David: God always rewards ing because in his praise of the Spartan Agesilaus, piety
the pious and just), 356 and 374 (David admonishes and justice (Ages. 3.2-5; 4.1-3) also come first, followed
Solomon to rule with piety and justice), 384 (David’s by self-control, courage, wisdom, patriotism, urbanity,
dying charge to Solomon: be just toward your subjects foresight, and simplicity (Ages. 4.4-8.8). Later, Diodorus
and pious toward God); 8.280 (Abijah to Jeroboam); (1.2.2, 49.3, 92.5; 3.60.2, 64.7; 5.7.7, 8.3, 79.2; 6.6.1,
9:16 (Josaphat enjoyed divine favor because of his jus- 8.1; 12.20.3; 33.5.6), Dionysius (Ant. rom. 1.4.2; 4.32.1;
tice and piety toward the Deity); 9.236 (virtuous king 8.2.2, 8.1, 28.3, 62.3; 13.5.3; Isoc. 7), occasionally Philo
Jotham was pious toward God and just toward human- (Praem. 162; Legat. 213), and Athenaeus (Deipn. 6.107
ity); 12.43 (Simon the Just was so called because of his [Kaibel]) would follow suit. Josephus’ programmatic
piety toward God and benevolence toward humanity); preference for this pair is thus noteworthy, though his
12.56 (modifying Aristeas). According to Ant. 18.117, model is uncertain.
867
the renowned baptist named John also exhorted Judeans Contrast normal human behavior (War 2.581) and
“to practise justice toward one another and piety toward even that of Josephus’ Pharisees, to whom he attributes
God.” By beginning the Essenes’ oaths with piety and the inclination to harm (βλάπτω) those in power (Ant.
justice and ranking piety above all (cf. Apion 2.145-46, 13.401; 17.41).
868
170-71), Josephus makes them ideal representatives of Compare Ant. 15.135: “God always exhorts us to
the national virtues. hate arrogance and injustice.”
869
It seems to have been the Sophists who furnished See the note to this phrase at 2.135.
870
lists of virtues and vices, and it was natural that a set Or “to rule, govern.” It is unclear in this sentence
of “cardinal virtues” quickly emerged (Plato, Phaed. whether such office-holding is envisaged within the Ess-
69B-C; Symp. 196D; Aristotle, Pol. 1259B; Cicero, ene communities, in the larger Judean society, or pos-
Fin. 65; Philo, Opif. 73; Cher. 5; Post. 128; Mos. 2.185 sibly in Roman administration: the noun and verb (ἄρχω,
etc.; Diogenes Laertius 3.80, 91; 7.92, 102, 126). These ἀρχή) could mean any of these things. The passage is
were commonly held to be justice (δικαισούνη), wis- most often taken, not without reason, to reflect Essene
dom (φρόνησις), courage (ἀνδρεία), and self-control acquiescence under foreign rule (M-B ad loc.: obedi-
(σωφροσύνη), of which Plato featured wisdom and ence to the sect’s authorities “steht außer Frage”). In War
justice (Prot. 323a-b; Gorg. 492b-c, 519a; Resp. 364a, Josephus repeatedly insists on the current divine support
430d, 500d; Leg. 632c), with holiness (ὁσιότης) added for Roman rule, most distinctly in the speeches he crafts
at times (Prot. 329c, 349b; Men. 78d). Although Plato for King Agrippa II and for himself: 2.387, 350, 390
incidentally includes piety (εὐσέβεια) with the other vir- (“without God [same phrase as here] it is impossible to
tues (e.g., Euth. 12e; Phil. 39e), and earlier writers had put together such a formidable empire”), 539; 3.351-54,
mentioned piety in close proximity to justice (Theognis 396, 400-1, 404; 4.323, 622; 5.367 (“God, who went the
1.145, 1141; Sophocles, El. 464; Phil. 85; Euripides, Alc. round of the nations, bringing to each in turn the rod
1148 [piety toward strangers, note]; Hipp. 1309; Hec. of empire, now rested over Italy”). And there are close
1230; Hel. 162), it seems to have been the 5th and 4th- parallels in roughly contemporary authors of Judean
century Athenian orators Antiphon (Tetr. 2.2.11; Chor. background, such as Paul, to the demand for acceptance
7, 51), Isocrates (Nic. 2; Pac. 33, 34, 63; Panath. 124 of Roman rule as God-ordained (Rom 13:1).
[specifying περὶ τοὺς θεούς and περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, Nevertheless, the context here seems to favor a local-
respectively], 163, 183, 204 [objects specified], 217), community reference. He has already stressed Essene
Demosthenes (Phil. 3.16; Cor. 1 [objects specified], 7, submission to the community’s own leaders (2.123,
126; Arist. 97; Boeot. 1.41; Exord. 54.1; Tim. 35), and 126, 134). The repetition of that point is not a problem,
Dinarchus (Dem. 84), who began to pair piety and justice since we are now dealing with oaths rather than descrip-
by themselves as the sum of human ethical obligation: tion of the lifestyle: indeed, one might expect the oaths
to the Gods and to humanity. Their near contemporary, to provide the basis for Essene behavior as otherwise
the historian Xenophon (4th cent. BCE), significantly described. Thus, the oath that follows this one raises the
places piety and justice (εὐσέβεια καὶ δικαιοσύνη) at prospect of an Essene’s coming into office, in which case
the head of the virtues in his assessment of Socrates’ he must not abuse his authority. The mutuality created
114 book two

abuse his authority872—outshining his subordinates, whether by dress or by some form of

extravagant appearance;873 141 always to love the truth874 and expose the liars;875 that he
will keep his hands pure from theft and his soul from unholy gain;876 that he will neither
conceal anything from the school-members877 nor disclose anything of theirs to others,878
even if one should apply force to the point of death.879

by (a) respect for those currently in authority and (b) tion came entirely from virtue (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph.
the promise of humility if one assumes office oneself, Lac.] 214e). Cf. Plutarch’s advice to the statesman, not to
seems to require that the offices in question are Essene- go after advantageous seats in the theater, luxury, osten-
communal (with Beall 1988: 81). tatious clothing, or other outward status symbols (Mor.
871
See the previous note. This passage seems to con- [Praec.] 823b).
874
firm that Josephus has in mind communal Essene offices, At the beginning (War 1.30) and end (Apion 2.296)
rather than Judean or Roman governance. of his corpus, Josephus addresses his works to “those
872
Greek µηδέποτε ἐξυβρίσειν εἰς τὴν ἐξουσίαν. In who love the truth” (τοῖς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀγαπῶσιν),
Josephus’ (Polybian and Jeremianic-Danielic) scheme and he regularly assures audiences of his own truth-
of things, abuse of the fortune that allows one to enjoy fulness (e.g., War 1.4; Ant. 1.6; Life 40; Apion 1.6).
875
success or power for a time is among the classic human Or “throw out” the “deceivers, impostors, cheat-
errors. In War he uses the verb ἐξυβρίζω with εἰς X to ers” (τοὺς ψευδοµένους προβάλλεσθαι). The only
express such a violation—a coinage of his own. Several character so far described as a ψευδόµενος has been
times he refers, as here, to someone’s abuse of (ἐξυβρίζω Pseudalexander (2.101).
876
εἰς) power or office (ἐξουσία or ἀρχή): War 1.206: young This rather poetic parallelism (χεῖρας κλοπῆς
Herod did not abuse his authority; 4.492 (cf. 2.250): καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνοσίου κέρδους καθαρὰν φυλάξειν) cap-
Nero did; Ant. 14.161: Herod’s brother Phasael did not. tures the spirit of Josephus’ summary of the latter half
How one behaved in a position of authority will be a of the decalogue, binding on all Judeans, in Ant. 3.92
major concern also in Josephus’ autobiography. In Life, (µὴ κλοπὴν δρᾶν). It also matches his rules for his own
which celebrates his character (ἦθος, 430), he makes an soldiers in Galilee (2.581-82: κλοπῆς . . . τε κέρδος);
issue of his behavior while he held great ἐξουσία (80): note his condemnation of the intransigent rebels (5.402),
he repeatedly adduces his clemency toward enemies whom he accuses of just such secret sins.
877
held at his mercy (262-65, 304-8, 377-80), his mildness See the note to “members” at 2.119.
878
toward his dependent charges (30-31, 97-100, 112-13, Although this might seem like a sectarian prin-
417-21), his protection of women’s honor (80), and his ciple, it corresponds closely to Josephus’ view of the
invulnerability to bribery and corruption of all kinds whole nation’s attitude toward outsiders, as he expresses
(79-86). Underlying this scheme is the Polybian insight this in Apion 2.209-10: “It will be seen that [Moses]
(see Introduction) that, since fortune (τύχη) brings the took the best of all possible measures at once to secure
inscrutable rise or fall of various persons and groups, our own customs from corruption, and to throw them
no one should take his temporary success for granted; open ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them. To
Josephus therefore speaks also about “abusing fortune” all who desire to come and live under the same laws
(2.184, 250; 5.120—see notes there). In Antiquities, by with us, [Moses] gives a gracious welcome. . . . On the
contrast, the verb ἐξυβρίζω normally takes as object a other hand, it was not his pleasure that casual visitors
person (whether human or divine), as the one “abused” should be admitted to the intimacies of our daily life.”
or “violated.” Cf. also the renowned Spartan insistence on avoiding
873
The point of the Greek phrase ἢ τινι πλείονι foreign travel or visitors from abroad, unless willing to
κόσµῳ seems to be the implicit contrast with inward adopt their laws (Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 238e), as
superiority through virtue. The Spartan king Agesilaus, well as the secrecy of their meetings (236f).
879
whom Xenophon offers as a moral example to all (Ages. For the virtue of perseverance to the point of death
10.2), is said to have insisted that he prove his leadership (µέχρι θανάτου; note this phrase again at 2.144), cf.
credentials exclusively by superior endurance: he would Isocrates, Arch. 59; Plato, Resp. 361d; Diodorus 15.27.2
accept only the worst bed among his men (4.2) and he (on the Spartans’ fame); Strabo 16.2.9; Plutarch, Caes.
made it a point of honor to keep his dress extremely 18.4; Dem. 38.5; Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 239c. The phrase
plain (τῇ . . . τὸ σῶµα φαυλότητι), while splendidly is conspicuously favored by 4 Maccabees, traditionally
equipping his army (11.11). He is said to have drawn the thought to have been written by Josephus (4 Macc 5:37;
contempt of the Egyptians because of his simple dress, 6:21; 7:8, 16; 13:1, 27; 15:10; 16:1; 17:7, 10).
until he could persuade them that greatness and distinc-
book two 115

142 In addition to these, he swears that he will impart the precepts to no one otherwise
than as he received them,880 that he will keep away from banditry,881 and that he will pre-
serve intact their school’s books and the names of the angels.882 With such oaths as these
they completely secure883 those who join them.
(8.8) 143 Those they have convicted884 of sufficiently serious errors they expel from
the order.885 And the one who has been reckoned out886 often perishes887 by a most pitiable
fate.888 For, constrained by the oaths and customs, he is unable to partake of food from
others. Eating grass889 and in hunger, his body wastes away and perishes. 144 That is why
they have actually shown mercy890 and taken back many in their final gasps, regarding as
sufficient for their errors this ordeal to the point of death.891

880 884
Greek µηδενὶ µὲν µεταδοῦναι τῶν δογµάτων Possibly, “whom they catch in [the act of].”
ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς µετέλαβεν. This concern for pre- Although ἁλίσκοµαι (“take, catch”) might seem to
cise transmission of the tradition matches Josephus’ require this sense, in legal contexts it may refer to con-
view of Judean tradition in general (e.g., Apion 1.29-43). viction by due process (see LSJ).
885
Although the precise referents here are intramural, the Cf. Xenophon, Lac. 10.7: those who fail to live
scrupulous preservation of Judean tradition is also a up to the Spartan legal code (νόµιµα), Lycurgus ordered
major theme elsewhere in Josephus. He normally uses excluded from among the peers.
886
the παραδίδωµι/παραλαµβάνω pair, perhaps because he This verb (ἐκκρίνω), which occurs only here in
is describing the pure transmission of the Judean laws Josephus, matches “reckon in” at 2.138 above, estab-
from Moses to the present (Ant. 3.280, 286; 4.295, 302; lishing a symmetry around the 12 oaths. In contrast to
4.304; Apion 2.279), whereas the context here is not that rare verb, however, this one—with possible senses
clearly inter-generational, but more a horizontal “impart- of “exclude, secrete, excrete, ooze,” as well as “reject,
ing” or sharing. Nevertheless, we are in the same seman- condemn”—is amply attested from the pre-Socratics
tic arena of accurate transmission. onward, plentifully in the medical and scientific writers
881
It may seem odd that Josephus should list two (13 times in the Hippocratic corpus; 87 times in Aristotle).
887
similar oaths (theft at 2.141 and banditry here), but This is the middle voice of διαφθείρω, which
banditry seems to be a distinct activity—for him and Josephus will repeat in the next sentence. I have usually
translated this verb in the active voice as “destroy,” a
his audience (see note to “chief bandit” at 2.56). In his
favorite euphemism for “kill”; see the note to “destroy”
own instructions to his newly enlisted soldiers in Galilee,
at 2.11.
he will similarly require them to forswear “theft as well 888
This form of the “fate” word-group, µόρος, occurs
as banditry and plunder” (κλοπῆς τε καὶ λῃστείας καὶ
only here in Josephus.
ἁρπαγῆς). Thus, the life to be avoided by the Essenes 889
Or herbs, possibly in implied contrast to grain (a
is the one lived by Cain, who abandoned the simple and
proper human food). Unsurprisingly, this verb (ποηφάγω)
virtuous way in favour of pleasure and banditry (ἡδονή, occurs only here in Josephus and rarely in other writ-
λῃστεία; Ant. 1.61; cf. War 2.125). ers except in biological and medical contexts (Hippo-
882
Or “of the messengers” (τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόµατα). crates, Diaeta 49; Aristotle, Hist. anim. 595a; Part. anim.
If “angels,” one should not imagine later western repre- 693a; Galen, Hipp. epid. comm. 17a.562—distinguish-
sentations. ing humanity from grass-eating animals) cf. Herodotus
883
The compound verb ἐξασφαλίζοµαι, only here in 2.25, 100. Appian (Mithr. 328) similarly describes men
Josephus, is extremely rare before and outside his work reduced by war to the barbaric practices of cannibalism
(Aristeas 100; Diodorus 27.15.3; Strabo 17.1.54; then in and grass-eating: those who ate grass became ill (cf. his
late antiquity). Without the intensifying prefix, the verb Lib. 471, 499).
is much more common (16 times in Josephus), and it 890
Or “pity” (ἐλεέω); cf. 2.134.
normally means “make secure, fortify” (used of walls or 891
See the note to this phrase at 2.141. Josephus’ use
cities: 2.609; 4.120; 6.15; Life 317). But the sense here of it only in these near places is typical of his practice:
might well be that the candidate is “proven, verified” by exploiting a word or phrase twice or more within a short
the process of oath-taking, and made safe for the com- space, possibly in different senses, and then dropping
munity. At any rate, the representation of philosophy as it. See BJP 9: lii. There are hints in the Paul’s letters of
a safe or “non-slip” way of living (ἀσφάλεια) was com- a similar sort of exclusion from the community and its
mon (cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Superst.] 171e; Lucian, Men. 4; sacred meal, leading to death (1 Cor 5:3-5; cf. perhaps
Hermot. 21, 29, 33, 47; Justin, Dial. 8.1; Luke 1:4). 11:27-30), along with intervention (as here) to take back
the penitent offender before his demise (2 Cor 2:5-11).
116 book two

Essene life: (8.9) 145 Now with respect to trials,892 [they are] just and extremely precise:893 they
judicial system render judgement after having assembled no fewer than a hundred, and something that
has been determined by them is non-negotiable.
There is a great reverence894 among them for—next to God—the name of the law-
giver,895 and if anyone insults him896 he is punished by death.897
146 They make it a point of honor898 to submit to the elders899 and to a majority. So if

892
In taking careful precautions for the trial of cases, ence to be impressed by the inexorable justice of the
the Essenes anticipate Josephus’ portrayal of Moses (Ant. Judean code and the Essenes’ high standards.
894
3.66-74) and of himself: one of his first actions as com- This is the only occurrence in Josephus of σέβας
mander of Galilee was to appoint a council of 70 men (“awe, reverence”), though he has many forms of the
and smaller councils of 7 in each town for the trial of same word-group.
895
cases (War 2.571-72; Life 79). “Lawgiver” (νοµοθέτης) is Josephus’ characteristic
893
This language (ἀκριβέστατοι καὶ δίκαιοι) is typi- term for Moses (e.g., Ant. 1.6, 15, 18; Apion 2.156, 161).
cal of Josephus: he everywhere applauds a scrupulous In spite of efforts to read this passage in light of the
precision (ἀκρίβεια) in history-writing, truth-telling, DSS, the term cannot plausibly be a reference to Qum-
and legal interpretation (Ant. 4.309; 20.260, 262; Apion ran’s Righteous Teacher (correctly Beall 1988: 92-93,
1.18, 29-36, 54, 67; 2.144, 175, 227, 257; Mason 1991: with discussion). The extraordinary rank that Josephus
89-96). Perhaps because Josephus often links ἀκρίβεια implies here for Moses, in relation to God, such that
with the laws (νόµοι, etc.), he happens not to juxtapose defamation of his name amounts to the capital charge
this word-group with “justice” (δικαι) words, though in of misusing the divine name, is supported by his own
other Greek writers precision with respect to justice or account of Moses in Antiquities. There he calls Moses a
simply pairing “precision” with “rightness” was com- divine man (θεῖον ἄνδρα, 3.180) and speaks of Moses’
mon phraseology (Isocrates, Arch. 30; Pan. 39; Demos- “super-human power” (τῆς ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον . . . δυνάµεως,
thenes, Chers. 38; Aristoc. 148; Aphob. 4; Xenophon, 3.318); because Moses’ laws clearly originate with God
Cyr. 1.3.16-17; Lycurgus [orat.], Leocr. 31; Plato, Resp. he is “esteemed higher than his own nature” (τῆς αὐτοῦ
484d; Diodorus 4.8.3; 11.47.2; 37.5.2; Philo, Spec. 4.213; φύσεως κρείττονα νοµίζεσθαι, 3.320). Moses surpassed
Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 209e; Aristides, Panath. all other men (4.328), and in his words one seemed to
117.33-34, 155.29 [Dindorf]). Philo even describes God hear the very speech of God (4.329). Although Josephus
as ἀκριβοδίκαιος (Her. 143; cf. Somn. 101; Jos. 65; does not divinize Moses, he does leave his special status
negative in Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1138a). On precise jus- ambiguous in much the same way as the Essenes do here.
tice with respect to judgments or trials (κρίσεις): Plato, The Spartans conspicuously honored all their kings after
Leg. 907b; Diodorus 5.79.1; Philo, Plant. 175; Spec. death, but especially their lawgiver, as a demi-god. The
4.190. Whereas Josephus’ Pharisees are merely reputed lawgiver Lycurgus was granted a posthumous temple in
to be the most precise in the laws (War 1.110; 2.162; Sparta, where he received annual sacrifices “as to a god”
Life 191), his description of the Essenes has no such (Xenophon, Lac. 15.2, 9; Plutarch, Lyc. 5.3; 31.3).
896
qualification. See further 2.152, where Josephus claims that the
Elsewhere, too, he takes pride in the severity of Essenes could not be made to “defame the lawgiver”
Judean law. He considers it a powerful attraction of the (βλασφηµέω τὸν νοµοθέτην—the same phrase as here),
Judean code that it leaves no loopholes for crime (Apion even under heavy torture and the threat of death. Note
2.276-77), that its justice is sure and swift (2.178), and the interesting parallel in Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.]
that numerous crimes merit the death penalty (2.214-17); 227a, concerning the defaming of a Spartan king on
he contrasts this with other systems. Centuries earlier account of his difficult legislation.
897
Xenophon had similarly contrasted the severe Spartan Greek κολάζεται θανάτῳ. For “punishing by
constitution with others: it inflicted the heaviest penal- death” in such a dative constuction, see Plato, Resp.
ties not only on those who committed real crimes, but 492d; Leg. 735e; Demosthenes, Mid. 176; Lysias, Erg.
even on those who simply failed to live virtuously (Lac. 3; LXX 1 Esdr. 8.24; Diodorus 12.62; 16.31, 54; Diony-
5-6). Plutarch says that the Spartan King Agesilaus was sius, Ant. rom. 8.78.5; Philo, Ebr. 135; Spec. 2.232; Dio,
precise and legally scrupulous (ἀκριβῆς καὶ νόµιµος), Or. 4.106; Plutarch, Artax. 27.1; Galb. 28.3; Appian,
except that he did favors for his friends (Mor. [Apoph. Bell. civ. 4.9.73. Josephus also uses the collocation
Lac.] 209e). Given the widespread despair over crime fairly often: War 5.124, 483; Ant. 7.150; 11.130, 144;
and social deterioration that Roman authors attest (e.g., 16.369.
898
Catullus 64 [end]; Cicero, Div. 2.2.4; Juvenal 3.268-314, Greek ἐν καλῷ τίθενται; see the note at 2.123.
899
etc.), we can imagine that Josephus expected his audi- It is unclear whether the status of these elders
book two 117

ten were seated together, one person would not speak if the nine were unwilling.
147 They guard against spitting into [their] middles900 or to the right side901 and against

is formal, or the issue is merely a polite deference to irrelevant here (Ant. 4.256; 5.335). Although it is pos-
age—as to an apparently informal majority who desire sible that the Essene prohibition has to do with simple
silence. Below (2.150) Josephus will describe a formal politeness, the context here does not suggest group activ-
division of grades according to time in the discipline, but ity: the same verb governs avoidance of spitting and of
it is not certain that such grades correlate with age, since Sabbath work, the latter of which is illustrated by dis-
the entry procedures of 2.137-42 leave open the possibil- cussion of defecation practices. And the second quali-
ity of older men joining after younger colleagues (but fication, “to the right side,” seems to preclude a group
2.120). At 2.123 and 134 Josephus describes a leadership context, since it cannot be that it was acceptable to spit
structure that is (emphatically) elected by hand rather on those to one’s left.
than age-based; see the notes there and at 2.150. There is a more likely explanation in view of Jose-
900
Greek τὸ πτύσαι εἰς µέσους. The somewhat pecu- phus’ language (τὸ πτύσαι εἰς µέσους ἢ τὸ δεξιὸν
liar prepositional phrase, “into middles . . . ,” is favored µέρος). Spitting in general, but particularly into the
by Josephus. Before his time the heaviest known user of middle area of one’s body (Theophrastus, Char. 16.14;
the phrase was Dionysius—9 instances (Ant. rom. 1.87.2; Theocritus, Idyll. 20.11; Tibullus 1.2.96)—the chest or
5.46.4; 6.12.2, 5; 7.35.5; 8.65.5; 9.11.4, 48.3; 10.41.4), torso (εἰς κόλπον πτύσαι; in sinum spuendo)—or to the
whereas others employed it sparingly (Aristophanes, right side, e.g. into the right shoe before dressing (Pliny,
1; Polybius, 1; Diodorus, 3; Strabo, 1; cf. Plutarch, 3). Nat. 24.172; 28.38; cf. Petronius, 74.13), were behaviors
Josephus has it a remarkable 15 times (here and War popularly thought to prevent or cure illnesses, though
4.216; 6.42; Ant. 3.13, 308; 5.54, 206; 9.56; 12.429; regarded by critics as superstitions (many examples
17.130, 131; 19.261; Life 37, 251, 255). Contrast the in Nicolson 1897). The custom of spitting for luck or
more expected neuter singular substantive εἰς τὸ µέσον health was grounded in a belief in the curative powers
(“into the middle”), which is far more evenly distributed of human saliva (explicitly Pliny, Nat. 38.35-39). Given
among ancient authors and across genres: 107 instances the non-group context (sabbath observance and private
by the end of the 1st century CE—before Plutarch (who defecation) and the very specific alternative here (to the
has it 14 times), though Josephus uses it only twice (Ant. right side), Josephus’ µέσους (“middles”) might well
9.149; 17.177). It seems odd to prefer this masculine refer to refer to the middles of bodies, thus equivalent to
plural form of the adjective without a definite article. κόλπος (so Life 326, where Josephus seizes an opponent
(The note at Life 37 in BJP 9 does not explore this pecu- wrestler-style, around the µέσος; cf. Herodotus 9.107;
liarity.) The other surprise is that Josephus departs even Aristophanes, Eq. 387; Nub. 1047), rather than to the
from established usage of εἰς µέσους. Those who had middle of the group, as is normally assumed—for it was
employed the phrase earlier did so in a nearly formulaic surely not acceptable to spit at a person on one’s left. If
way: with a verb of forceful or aggressive movement this interpretation is valid, then like some other philoso-
(βιάζω, press or force; ὠθέω, push or shove; ῥίπτω, cast phers, Josephus’ Essenes reject the common practice of
or hurl; ἵηµι, release or shoot) and complementary direct spitting for good luck or to ward off disease.
object explaining whose “middles” were in question— It is widely assumed that Josephus’ remarks on Ess-
usually πολεµίους (combatants) or ἐχθρούς (enemies, ene avoidance of spitting (in these two directions) is
adversaries): it was usually a case of someone’s charg- “strong evidence” for the Qumran-Essene identification
ing into the enemies’ “middles.” Josephus, however, has (Beall 1988: 96; cf. Grabbe 1992: 2.495; VanderKam
those combinations in only 3 of the phrase’s 15 occur- 1994: 87), because the Community Rule (1QS 7.13-15)
rences (Ant. 5.206; 9.56; 12.429). In his narratives the prescribes a month’s penance for anyone who has spat
accompanying verb is usually neutral (χωρέω, advance; into the middle of a gathered assembly (‫ואיש אשר‬
πάρειµι, come by or be present; προ-/παρ-έρχοµαι, step ‫)ירוק אל תוך מושב הרבים‬. In spite of the superficially
forward or come along; παράγω, lead by; φέρω, carry) similar subject—spitting—the parallel is unimpressive.
and the “middles” are left without a noun-object comple- 1QS 7 is listing a number of offensive behaviors that
ment (War 4.216; Ant. 3.308; 5.54; 17.130-131; 19.261; will be punished, e.g.: insulting companions, deceiving
Life 37, 251, 255); often, the implied group is a “mob” them, treating communal property recklessly, speaking
of one’s own compatriots. Since the phrase by itself is foolishly, lying down to sleep during a meeting, going
unclear, we must rely on context for meaning (see next naked without reason, spitting into the assembly, dress-
note). ing shabbily, or laughing uproariously. These are all the
901
Josephus mentions spitting in two other places, activities of people who lack self-control when they get
both concerning the law of levirate marriage, which is together: a prohibition on public spitting (as in many
118 book two

applying themselves to labors on the seventh days,902 even more than all other Judeans: for
not only do they prepare their own food one day before, so that they might not kindle903
a fire on that day, but they do not even dare to transport a container904—or go to relieve
themselves.905
148 On the other days906 they dig a hole of a foot’s907 depth with a trowel908—this is
what that small hatchet909 given by them to the neophytes910 is for—and wrapping their
cloak around them completely,911 so as not to outrage the rays of God,912 they relieve

modern health clubs) is expected and unremarkable. If nominative: “so that a fire might not be ignited.”
904
we had rules for other groups, we should expect similar Although Josephus does not engage in the later
prohibitions. (The Talmud [b. Ber. 24a-b], e.g., recom- rabbinic discussions of what constitutes prohibited
mends ways of avoiding spittle build-up.) The context “work” on the sabbath, the two Essene restrictions he
in Josephus is entirely different from that of 1QS 7 in mentions—kindling fires and carrying jars—both have
that it is not obviously public; it presents this matter as biblical warrant (Exod 35:3; Jer 17:21-27) and so figure
an example of extraordinary rigor (not as the avoidance essentially in rabbinic analysis (m. Shabbat, esp. 7:2).
905
of repugnant behavior); and it specifically indicates two The verb ἀποπατέω (“walk off, away”), which
directions. occurs only here in Josephus, is euphemistic for leav-
902
Judeans’ observance of the sabbath was probably ing the road to relieve oneself. For the sake of variatio
their best known, sometimes ridiculed, custom (e.g., Hor- Josephus manages to find another, rarer word in the next
ace, Sat. 1.9.60-78; Ovid, Ars amat. 1.75-76, 415-16; sentence.
906
Persius 5.184; Tacitus, Hist. 5.4-5; Plutarch, Quaest. That is, on days other than sabbaths.
907
conv. 4.6.2; Juvenal 14.105-6; Apion in Apion 2.21; cf. Only here does Josephus use this elegant adjective,
Schäfer 1997: 82-92; Gruen 2002: 48-50). In his later ποδιαῖος: “foot-long as to depth” rather than saying “one
works Josephus will often mention this day with familiar foot deep” or the like.
σαββατ-forms, transliterating Hebrew ‫( שבת‬Ant. 3.91, 908
Greek σκαλίς occurs only here in Josephus. Before
143, 237; 12.259, 274; 13.12, 234, 252; 14.63, 64, 226, his time it is attested only in Strabo 3.2.9. See the note to
242, 245, 258, 264; Apion 2.21, 27, 175, 282). In keep- “hatchet” at 2.137 above. This implement recalls the ‫יתד‬
ing with War’s Atticizing avoidance of foreign diction of Deut 23:14 (OT 23:13), with which the Israelites were
(see Introduction), however, it uses σαββατ-words spar- instructed to dig holes for defecation outside the camp.
909
ingly (only 1.147; 2.456, 518, 635; cf. the Sabbatical Greek ἀξινίδιον occurs occur only here in Jose-
River in 7.99, a special case). Josephus usually prefers phus and is unattested elsewhere except the 10th-cent. CE
to speak, as here, of the “7th days” (ταῖς ἑβδοµάσιν)—a Suda lexicon, which merely gives it as a synonym for the
phrase rarely used in his later works. form at 2.137 [ἀξινάριον]. See the note to 2.137, on the
In any case, the sabbath is conspicuous in War ’s nar- significance of this diction variation.
910
rative. Josephus mentions it early in comparison with the This is the only occurrence in Josephus of
7th year (of rest), and again when Pompey faces dimin- νεοσύστατος (lit. someone or -thing “newly consti-
ished resistance while taking the city, since Judeans may tuted”). It is unattested before his time and afterwards
fight only in direct self-defense, but do not pursue dis- turns up only in a few medical writers, in relation to new
cretionary war-time activities, on the sabbath (1.145-48). diseases: Galen, Comp. med. sec. 12.830; Oribasius (4th
King Agrippa’s deliberative tour-de-force speech against cent. CE), Coll. med. 10.17.2; Aetius (6th cent. CE), Latr.
the coming war cautions that the rebels will face the 7.36.24; 8.16.12; 15.15.479.
911
dilemma of either observing the Sabbath, and losing mil- This is the only occurrence of περικαλύπτω in
itarily, or violating it and losing divine favor (2.390-92). Josephus—a word with few occasions for literal employ-
In the first conflict, however, they ignore the sabbath ment, since the preposition merely intensifies the meaning
with great success (2.517-18). Then John of Gischala of the root: “conceal, cover.” Josephus thus emphasizes
tricks a gullible Titus, using the sabbath as a pretext for that the sun-deity must not be offended by the merest
his fateful escape to Jerusalem (4.99-103), and a Syrian glimpse of skin when the Essene is engaged in such
Judean named Antiochus, who abandons his ancestral undignified activity: the philosopher must be completely
traditions, makes a point of trying to end sabbath-ob- covered around. Cf. Deut 23:15 (OT 23:14) which warns
servance (7.50-53). the Israelites, precisely in the context of defecation, that
903
Reading ἐναύοιεν with Niese, Thackeray and MSS God must not see “any naked thing” of them (‫)ערות דבר‬
MLR, though PA*, the corrector of A, and marginal and turn away from them.
glosses of LR have forms of ἅπτω or ἐνάπτω (“ignite”), 912
Or “the God”: the sun is obviously in view. Jose-
sometimes in the passive voice, reading πῦρ (“fire”) as a phus’ vivid phrase (τὰς αὐγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ) recalls Eurip-
book two 119

themselves913 into it [the hole]. 149 After that, they haul back the excavated914 earth into
the hole. (When they do this, they pick out for themselves the more deserted spots.)915
Even though the secretion916 of excrement is certainly a natural function, it is customary

ides, Heracl. 749-50, where the Chorus calls upon the 16:29). It is considered striking that Josephus’ Essenes
“luminous rays of the God who brings light to mortals” agree with the DSS in effectively prohibiting sabbath
(λαµπρόταται θεοῦ φαεσιµβρότου αὐγαί) and antici- bowel movements.
pates Julian’s Hymn to King Helios (1.9), which also A. I. Baumgarten (1996) has pointed out, however,
conveys the piety that might be involved: “since my that Josephus’ clear and distinctive prescription for Ess-
childhood, a powerful longing for the rays of the God ene toilet practice poses a substantial difficulty for the
has fully possessed me; since I was a little boy, my mind Qumran-Essene hypothesis, because the 1QM 7.7 and
was so completely given to the light that illuminates the 11QT 46.13-16 (cf. 4Q91, f1, 3.7) both indicate built
ether. . . .” Cf. Hymn. homer. cer. 35, 280; Nicander, frag. latrines: the latter “roofed houses with holes in them.”
74.39 (Gow and Scholfield); Athenaeus, Deipn. 15.31.42 By contrast, Josephus emphasizes the ad hoc nature of
(Kaibel). Philo of Alexandria speaks frequently of God Essene toilet practice, and hence the fundamental impor-
as “the purest ray” or as rays of sun: Fug. 136; Mut. 6; tance of the purpose-made hatchet received at initiation
Somn. 1.72, 116 (“the rays of God”: αἱ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐγαί), (2.137, 148). In any comparison with Josephus’ Essenes,
239; Praem. 25; Mos. 1.66. On Essene reverence for the therefore, 11QT’s prescriptions can only be explained
sun, see the notes at 2.128 above. away. The recent identification of a built latrine facility
913
The verb θακεύω, a more vivid synonym for in the main Qumran complex itself (in L 51; cf. Mag-
ἀποπατέω in the previous sentence, occurs only here ness 2002: 105-13) also creates obvious difficulties for
in Josephus. It is not attested before his time, though identification of the site as Essene, which too can only be
the undatable Appendix Proverbiorum (2.66) attributes explained away, e.g. as necessitated by “fecal emergen-
to Peisistratus a saying about defecation within the pre- cies” (Zias and Tabor 2006-07: 633-34). In Magness’s
cincts of Apollo’s temple (cf. also Anth. Graec. 11.407). view (2002: 108-9): “it appears that only practices which
Strikingly, after brief appearances just after his time in deviated from the norm are described by Josephus. ..
Plutarch (Plutarch, Lyc. 20.6; Mor. 232f [same anec- When they did not have access to built latrines in perma-
dote]) and Artemidorus (1.2.96), it more or less disap- nent settlements, they relieved themselves in the manner
described by Josephus.” But of course Josephus appears
pears from Greek literature (except in the quotations of
to think that he is describing standard and distinctive
Josephus and in medieval lexicographers). This again
Essene practice.
makes it unlikely that Josephus borrows the word, though
The yet more recent identification of an area some
it is hapax, from a source.
914
300-400 m. NW of Qumran revealing parasitologi-
Although this verb (ἀνορύσσω) occurs only here in
cal evidence of old human excrement (Zias and Tabor
Josephus, it is a compounded form of the verb ὀρύσσω
2006-07) faces different problems. Although Zias and
just used (“dig”) in 2.148, to which it refers. Tabor propose that “this quadrant of the Qumran site
915
In keeping with the whole tenor of Josephus’ is the only one that fits closely Josephus’ description
description of their pronounced modesty and purity, of Essene toilet practices,” and “he may have well
the Essenes’ preference for remote places for defeca- observed firsthand in the Qumran area” how Essenes
tion is understandable. It recalls the prescription of Deut relieved themselves (p. 638), Josephus is plainly describ-
23:13-15 (OT 23:12-14): the Israelites are to relieve ing Essene behavior throughout the cities (2.124), and
themselves “outside the camp”; there they are to dig not at Qumran. His language about their “picking out for
a hole for the purpose (with a stick or peg, ‫ )יתד‬and themselves the more deserted spots” (τοὺς ἐρηµοτέρους
cover it again. τόπους ἐκλεγόµενοι) would not seem to make much
Many scholars have found what seems an impressive sense in the scenario depicted by Zias and Tabor, who
parallel in the avoidance of sabbath defecation among describe the parasite field as the only suitable site for
Josephus’ Essenes and among the people of the DSS, remote defection (p. 638), which everyone would have
usually connected with the settlement at Qumran. For had to use. It is in any case entirely unclear how or when
1QM 7.6-8 prescribes that latrines be located 2,000 the fecal parasites got there, or whether this was not also
cubits (roughly 1 km) from the camp, in the projected a built latrine site.
916
time of war, and 11QT 46:13-16 specifies 3,000 cubits The noun ἔκκρισις here is cognate to the verb
(about 1.4 km), whereas one is permitted to walk only εκκρίνω (“reckon out”) just above (2.143), where it is
1,000 cubits on the sabbath (CD 10.20-21; cf. Exod used of one ejected from the order. By using the two
120 book two

to wash themselves off after it as if they have become polluted.917

(8.10) 150 They are divided into four classes, according to their duration918 in the
training,919 and the later-joiners are so inferior to the earlier-joiners that if they should
touch them, the latter wash themselves off as if920 they have mingled with a foreigner.
Essene 151 [They are] long-lived,921 most of them passing 100 years922—as a result, it seems
endurance, to me at least,923 of the simplicity of their regimen924 and their orderliness.925 Despisers
toughness

forms in such proximity (and hardly anywhere else), sentence: ἀπολούεσθαι . . . καθάπερ (“wash themselves
Josephus may be intending a word-play. The noun he off as if ”)—possibly the reason for linking these sub-
uses elsewhere only at Ant. 3.261, speaking of gonor- stantively different statements.
921
rhea, leprosy, and menstruation as grounds for exclu- This is the only occurrence of µακρόβιος in Jose-
sion from the community: in the last case, significantly, phus. Aristotle had written a study of animals with vary-
he describes the secretion as “natural” (κατὰ φύσιν)— ing lengths of life (On Long and Short-Lived [Animals]),
albeit still requiring a period of purification—as here though more germane for comparison with Josephus is
(φυσική). Lucian’s 2nd-cent. CE essay, The Long-Lived (Macro-
917
See the note to “pollutes” at 2.132: a major theme bioi), in which he observes that one’s regimen of life
of the War (μίασμα); see also Introduction. For washing (δίαιτα), along with congenial air and soil, contributes
off pollutions, see Philo, Det. 170. much to longevity (Macr. 3-4, 6). Of entire nations, he
918
In 2.123 and 134 above (see discussion there), has heard that the Chinese (Seres), who all drink water,
Josephus describes the executive leadership of the live to 300 years (Macr. 5), though when it comes to
order—the curators/managers—as elected. It is not describing individuals he counts anything over about 80
immediately clear how one should reconcile an elected as a notably long life (8, 11-13, 15-16, 22, 27). Philoso-
leadership with the rigid seniority system mentioned phers and orators often seem to live past 100 (Macr.
here. Thackeray (LCL n. b to 2.150) passes along from 18-19, 23). The only lawgiver he includes is the Spartan
J. B. Lightfooot the compelling proposal that these 4 Lycurgus (Macr. 28), who reached 85. On some of the
grades correspond to the 4 levels of initiation described complexities involved in calculating real life expectancy
at 2.137-42. This would explain the rigid separation of in the Roman world, see e.g. Parkin 1992; Frier 1999.
newcomers (i.e., 1st-year novices) from senior (i.e., full) 922
In Lucian’s list of long-lived nations (previous
members on grounds of purity, which would not seem note), the Chaldeans normally pass 100 because of a
feasible if such men were working, bathing, and eat- barley-bread that keeps them sharp-sighted and stronger
ing together (e.g., 2.128-33). It would also explain the than other men (Macr. 5). Lucian thinks that even with-
principle of elected curators, which would obtain only out the benefit of outstanding air and soil, which have
among the full (4th-grade) members. It perhaps deserves enabled some others to live to extraordinary lengths,
emphasis (in general support of Beall 1988: 99-100) in Rome itself one might hope for a long life if one
that neither the system of elected curators (2.123, 134) applies oneself to healthy diet and exercise (Macr. 6).
nor that of duration-determined grades (on any explana- Josephus will later attribute the longevity of the ancients,
tion of the latter) in Josephus matches the information e.g. Noah, who lived to 950 (Ant. 1.104-6), to their spe-
gleaned from the DSS about Qumran leadership (by a cial relationship with God and to their diet—as well as
Guardian/Overseer [‫ ]מבקר‬as well as Zadokite priests, a special favor granted for them to pursue astronomi-
Levites, and others; e.g., 1QS 2.19-23; CD 14.3-4; 1QM cal calculations beyond normal life spans. He uses the
13.1), pace among others M-B 437 n. 76. same verb for longevity [παρατείνω] there as here. In
919
Or “exercise, discipline.” This is the nominal form Ant. 10.190-94 he considerably embellishes the Bible to
(ἄσκησις; cf. “ascetic”) of the verb ἀσκέω, rendered discuss the beneficial effects of the diet maintained by
“cultivate” at 2.119, 166. Just as the Essene philosophy Daniel and his associates.
923
is a system of training the character for Josephus, so too The phrase ἔµοιγε δοκεῖν is peculiar (contrast
is the entire culture according to the Judean constitution ἔµοιγε δοκεῖ—attested dozens of times in Xenophon,
(Apion 2.171-73). For the great power of rigorous train- Plato, Aeschines, etc.) and an almost unique stylistic trait
ing to inculcate virtue, irrespective of one’s birth, see the of War . Before Josephus it is found once in Plato’s Meno
reported sayings of the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus (Plu- (81a) and once in the Hippias Maior (291a) attributed
tarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 226a-b). Plutarch’s Spartan to Plato (also in the Orphic Testimonia, frag. 5.6, and
sayings often juxtapose δίαιτα (regimen) and ἄσκησις, Stobaeus, Anth. 4.1.114, both difficult to date), but oth-
as Josephus does here (2.137-38, 151). erwise in no known author before the 2nd century CE. Yet
920
Note the similarity of wording with the previous Josephus has it here and at War 2.479; 3.302; 4.312; 6.4.
book two 121

of terrors,926 triumphing over agonies by their wills,927 considering death—if it arrives

with glory—better than deathlessness.928 152 The war against the Romans929 proved their

It is a stylistic trait of War , therefore, and hardly likely ents contempt for death as a singular Judean virtue. In
to have been borrowed from a source on the Essenes. War the theme has been introduced casually in the person
924
See the note at 2.137. of the rebel Athrongeus (2.60), but it will become the
925
Or “discipline.” The word εὐταξία appears fre- chief characteristic of Judean fighters (3.357, 475; 5.88,
quently (13 of 16 times in Josephus) in War, where it 458; 6.42; 7.406), which Roman generals can only try
is otherwise in every case the hallmark of the Roman to inculcate in the legions (6.33). Throughout Antiqui-
legions: 1.22 (coupled with ἄσκησις as here—previous ties, similarly, Josephus features this Judean trait, begin-
section), 143; 2.529, 580; 3.85, 467, 488; 4.635; 5.285, ning with an encomium on King Saul’s example (Ant.
353; 6.22. At 2.580 Josephus will hold out Roman disci- 6.344-47). There we meet the only other example of the
pline as a model for his own Galilean soldiers. Given his agen-noun καταφρονητής in Josephus: “fellow-despisers
choice of τάγµα (“order”) as a group description of the of terrors” will learn much from Saul’s example. Note
Essenes (the word translated “legion” in other contexts), especially Josephus’ remark that the Judean constitution
it is hard to escape the conclusion that he wishes to inculcates contempt for death (θανάτου περιφρόνησις),
evoke all of the legions’—and Spartans’—less bellicose among other virtues (Apion 2.146), in all Judeans, and
virtues (absolute discipline, celibacy, unfailing courage, his closing statement (Apion 2.294) that in wartime
etc.) in this admirable “corps” of Judean men. Although Judeans despise death (θανάτου καταφρονεῖν). Once
Spartan discipline was more typically described with the again, his description of the Essenes embodies his fond-
nearly synonymous εὐνοµία (Plutarch, Lyc. 5.3; 29.6;
est vision of the entire Judean tradition; it can hardly
30.2; Mor. 239f), Xenophon may use εὐταξία at Lac.
come from a source.
8.1 (so Dindorf, where the MSS have εὐεξία). 927
926 On mastery over pain through a set of laws,
Holding death (see the next sentence) and its ter-
see Plato, Leg. 634b; in more general philosophi-
rors in contempt was widely understood to be the acid
cal terms, Epicurus, Gnom. frag. 4: πᾶσα ἀλγηδὼν
test of any claim to true philosophy, and this was a
εὐκαταφρόνητος; cf. Philo, Prob. 30. Josephus has a
point of intersection between ethical and martial vir-
curious parallel on the defeating of pain under torture
tue: Warren 2004; Diodorus 5.29.2; 15.86.3; 17.11.4-5,
in Ant. 18.25—of the “4th Philosophy.” Cf. 4 Macc 3:18;
43.6, 107.6; Dionysius Ant. rom. 5.46.4; Philo, Prob. 30;
Abr. 183; Musonius Rufus, Diss. 10; Epictetus, Diatr. 14:1, 11.
928
4.1.70, 71; Plutarch, Brut. 12.2; Lucian, Peregr. 13, 23, Such a saying (τὸν δὲ θάνατον, εἰ µετ’ εὐκλείας
33; Marcus Aurelius, Med. 4.50.1; 9.3.1; 12.34.1; Poly- πρόσεισι, νοµίζοντες ἀθανασίας ἀµείνονα), though
aenus, Strat. 5.14.1; Diogenes Laertius 1.6; Phalaris, Ep. closely paralleled at 1.58, seems unattested elsewhere. It
103.3; Appian, Celt. 1.9; Bell. civ. 5.4.36; Dio 43.38.1; was a commonplace that death with glory was preferable
46.26.2, 28.5; 62.25.1. Cf. esp. Seneca’s moral epistle to an ignoble life (Xenophon, Lac. 9.1—the famous prin-
on “despising death” (contemno mortem, Ep. 24), which ciple of the Spartans; cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.]
offers many parallels to the present passage (2.151-59). 225d) or that death with glory brings, or amounts to,
The Essenes display a Stoic-like (and ideal Roman) immortality (Polybius 6.54.2; Philo, Prob. 120; Plant.
imperviousness to external impressions (cf. Cicero, Part. 45-46; Virt. 33; 4 Macc 6:19 // Origen, Exhort. mart.
or. 75-80). 22; Josephus, Ant. 12.282). In both cases the assumption
The phrase καταφρονηταὶ τῶν δεινῶν is striking, is that real deathlessness is of course unobtainable, but
first, because 2 of the 3 occurrences in Josephus of the glory achieved in life (especially glorious death) at least
unusual agent-noun καταφρονητής (“despiser”) occur preserves one’s name in perpetuity, which is a kind of
in this Essene passage: at 2.122 (near the beginning; immortality. To say that death with (immortal) glory is
note the symmetry) they are “despisers of wealth.” This preferable to immortality itself is paradoxical, and the
equal disdain for the two great human motivators— more effective for it.
929
pleasure (cf. 1.120, through wealth) and pain (portend- This formulation (ὁ πρὸς Ῥωµαίους πόλεµος)
ing death)—happens to agree with Plutarch’s roughly matches that of the opening sentence of this work
contemporary portrait of the Spartans, who also despise (τὸν Ἰουδαίων πρὸς Ῥωµαίους πόλεµον; “the war of
(καταφρονέω) both the pleasures (Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] Judeans against Romans”) and Ant. 1.4 (“the war against
210a) and death (210f, 216c, 219e). the Romans waged by us, the Judeans” [τὸν µὲν γὰρ
But the author with the heaviest investment in such πρὸς τοὺς Ῥωµαίους πόλεµον ἡµῖν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις
language is Josephus: throughout his writings he pres- γενόµενον]). Josephus does not flinch from understand-
122 book two

souls in every way:930 during it, while being twisted931 and also bent,932 burned and also
broken,933 and passing through all the torture-chamber instruments,934 with the aim that
they might insult the lawgiver935 or eat something not customary,936 they did not put up
with suffering either one: not once gratifying those who were tormenting [them], or cry-
ing.937 153 But smiling in their agonies938 and making fun939 of those who were inflicting

ing the conflict as one waged by his people, in which main object of burning—and endurance—is the temple
he proudly fought, against the Romans—even though in Jerusalem (5.445; 6.10, 165, 21, 234, 271, 272, 282,
its causes, course, and consequences were regrettable. 316, 355, 264, 372).
934
See also Apion 2.271-72 and 2.219: the facts [presum- Josephus uses βασανιστήριον (“torture chamber”)
ably, the recent war in particular] have made it clear to only here. Though amply attested from Plutarch onward,
everyone that “already many of our people, and on many it seems to appear before his time, outside of a fragment
occasions, have chosen to suffer spectacularly rather than from Theopompus (frag. 63 [Kock]), only in 4 Mac-
utter a single word against the law.” cabees (6:1; 8:1, 12, 19, 25)—another indication of the
930
Knowing that one’s handling of death is the true Maccabean literature’s influences on him here (see pre-
test of philosophy, in the Against Apion Josephus claims ceding notes in this section). Similarly, the “instruments”
that his compatriots in general have spectacularly passed (ὄργανα) of torture appear often in 4 Maccabees (6:25;
the test before the Roman world (Apion 2.232-34): “Has 9:20, 26; 10:5, 7, 18), elsewhere in War at 1.635. Seneca
anyone ever heard of a case of our people, not, I mean, has his friend Lucilius imagine the horrible instruments
in such large numbers, but merely two or three, proving of torture that tear away the flesh, as he encourages him
traitors to their laws or afraid of death? I do not refer to to despise death (Ep. 24.14).
935
the easiest of deaths, on the battlefield, but death accom- See 2.145 above, where the Essenes are said to
panied by physical torture, which is thought to be the consider defamation of the lawgiver (Moses) a capital
hardest of all. To such a death we are, I believe, exposed offense.
936
by some of our conquerors . . . from a curiosity to wit- Or “any of the unaccustomed things” (τι τῶν
ness the astonishing spectacle of men who believe that ἀσυνήθων). This is the only occurrence in Josephus of
the only evil that can befall them is to be compelled to the negative ἀσυνήθης, and we do not know its precise
do any act or utter any word contrary to their laws…. referent. The closest verbal parallel seems to be in Galen,
Our willing obedience to the law in these matters [sc. whose book on familiar vs. unfamiliar practices (De con-
with respect to food and drink] results in the heroism we suetudinibus 114) includes the example of unaccustomed
display in the face of death.” foods (βρώµατα ἀσυνήθη)—in a more general sense (cf.
931
Of the 5 occurrences of στρεβλόω in Josephus, 4 his Comp. med. 13.167). Josephus appears to mean foods
are in the War (1.548; 4.329; 7.373), with several of the excluded by biblical law as currently interpreted (Deut
following words clustered there as here: βάσανος (“tor- 14-15; cf. Ant. 3.259-60; Apion 2.173-74); the forced
ture”), αἰκία or αἰκίζω (“torment”), διαλέγχω (“test, eating of pork and such things was a typical feature of
prove, expose”), ὑποµένω (“endure”). These same words persecution, especially in the paradigmatic Hasmonean
are concentrated, along with others graphically depicting revolt (2 Macc 7:1; 4 Macc 5:1-2; cf. War 1.34). Jose-
endurance under torture, in 4 Maccabees (στρεβλ–7:4, phus’ concern for dietary law comes up repeatedly in
14; 8:11, 13, 24; 9:17, 2; 12:3, 11; 14:12; 15:14, 24, 25; his narratives: his adversary John of Gischala allegedly
αἰκι– 1:11; 6:9, 16; 7:4; 14:1; 15:19; ὑποµένω–1:11; 5:23; had improper (ἄθεσµος) food served at his table (War
7:9, 22; 9:8, 30; 15:30; 16:17, 22; 17:4, 12, 17, 23), a fact 7.264); Daniel and his colleagues refused the food of the
that seems to highlight Josephus’ debt to this work. Babylonian royal court (Ant. 10.190-94—Josephus turns
932
Josephus uses the verb λυγίζω (here passive par- this into a preference for vegetarian food); and Josephus’
ticiple) only here, and it is barely attested before his imprisoned colleagues in Rome inspired his admiration
time (Sophocles, Trach. 779; Plato, Resp. 405c; Eupolis, because, not forgetting piety, they were existing on figs
frag. 339 [Kock]). From the 2nd century CE, however, it and nuts (Life 14).
937
becomes more popular: Lucian, Salt. 77; Pod. 114, 287; The precise sense of the Greek (οὐδέτερον ὑπέµει-
Galen passim; Pollux, Onom. 3.155; Philostratus, Imag. ναν παθεῖν, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲκολακεῦσαὶ ποτε τοὺς αἰκιζο-
2.32.2; Aelian, Nat. an. 2.11; Tatian, Or. graec. 22.1. µένους ἢ δακρῦσαι) is unclear. One problem is the
933
The Greek is euphonous: καιόµενοί τε καὶ meaning and object range of the governing finite verb
κλώµενοι. Burning as torture again recalls 4 Macca- ὑποµένω, which could have the senses “survive, live on”;
bees (6:26, 27; 10:14; 15:22; 16:4; 18:14). In War , the hence “bear with, submit to”—the last meanings espe-
book two 123

the tortures, they would cheerfully940 dismiss their souls,941 [knowing] that they would get
them back again.942
(8.11) 154 For the view has become tenaciously held among them that whereas our bod- Essene views of
soul, afterlife
ies are perishable943 and their matter impermanent, our souls endure forever, deathless:944

cially common with a following infinitive as here (“to 15.279, 374; Life 367. This language is closely related to
suffer, undergo X”). The second problem is the meaning that for “figured speech” (built on the σχῆµα- root: 2.29,
of the infinitive παθεῖν, and the third, the relationship 259, 603; 4.154, 265, 336, 340) and reinforces War’s
between it and the following infinitives (“flatter, gratify” tragic-ironic character (see Introduction). Such discourse
and “weep, cry”). Are these also covered by the finite was not used by earlier known historians (e.g., Herodotus,
verb? If so, does the “neither” refer to forced eating of Thucydides, Polybius), which makes Josephus’ interest in
non-kosher food or defaming the lawgiver (the more the category that much more interesting—given his debt
natural reading, since they precede), or (also, awkwardly) to the classical historians in many other ways. Although
to the possibilities of gratifying the tormentors or crying Josephus has some 18 occurrences of ειρων-words, the
(the infinitives following)? And what exactly is the “suf- major users before his time are Aristophanes (3), Plato
fering” that the Essenes did not tolerate, since they did in (16), Aristotle (29), Theophrastus (6), Demosthenes (3),
fact undergo terrible tortures? All of this is complicated Dionysius (11), and Philo (2). His rough contemporary
by the strong disjunction “but” in Greek, where I have Plutarch (36) also has a large investment, which might
placed the colon. suggest that the explicit use of irony-language, indicating
The MS tradition reflects these problems. V glosses everything from chicanery to artful speech, was a sign
“neither” as “of the things not customary.” In his 3rd- of his times (see Mason 2005a).
940
cent. paraphrase of this passage, which is otherwise Others who face death cheerfully (εὔθυµος) include
quite faithful, Porphyry (Abst. 4.13), as quoted also by Josephus himself (3.382), Titus’ faithful soldiers (6.184),
Eusebius (Praep. ev. 9.3 [407c]), resolves the matter by the Judean fighters (6.364), and Herod’s brother Phasael
breaking up the sentence, omitting παθεῖν, interposing (Ant. 14.369). On the virtue of contempt for death, see
explanatory clauses, and supplying ὑποµένω twice, with the note to “terrors” at 2.151.
941
different referents: “From such a training as this they The phrase “dismiss [or let go of, send away, give
have produced endurance: for example, being racked up] one’s soul” (here τὰς ψυχὰς ἠφίεσαν) is one that
and twisted . . .with the aim that they might defame the Josephus uses several times (War 6.183; 7.344; Ant.
lawgiver or eat something not customary, to submit in 5.148; 14.369; 19.107). It usually has a strong sense of
neither case. They displayed this in the war against the voluntariness (rather than merely letting go of life), as in
Romans, when they did not submit to gratifying their the only other author near Josephus’ time who employs
tormentors or to crying.” In the translation above I have the phrase (cf. Hippocrates, Aff. int. 39.26): the 2nd-cen-
given full weight to the problematic “suffering” (παθεῖν), tury Pausanias (2.5.8; 4.21.11; 5.27.11; 7.13.8; 8.40.2, 5,
reading it in light of the Essenes’ voluntary dismissal of 44.8, 51.8; 9.33.1; 10.2.4, 22.4, 23.12, 32.17; cf. Achilles
their souls (next sentence), and included the following Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 5.12.3). Such active release of life, in
infinitives as part of what the Essenes did not endure, order to regain it later, recalls the Maccabean martyrs’
while leaving the precise referent of “neither” ambigu- behavior in 2 Macc 6:23; 7:11; 14:46; 4 Macc 6:27-30;
ous. The resulting sense is that they did not cling to life, 10:20-21; 12:19.
942
but ended their suffering (and precluded either tears or The language of “getting/giving [bodies, spirits,
capitulation to the torturers) by confidently letting go of souls] back again” (κοµίζω + πάλιν), in the resurrection
their souls—robbing the tormentors of their goals. or afterlife, continues to echo the martyrdom scenes of
938
According to War 3. 320-21, Vespasian was deeply 2 Macc 7:11, 14, 23, 29; esp. 14:46.
943
impressed with Judean courage at Iotapata, after captur- A common observation (φθαρτὰ µὲν εἶναι τὰ
ing a fighter who held out under every kind of torture, σώµατα): cf. Aristotle, Cael. 305a; Philo, Opif. 119;
even fire, refusing to tell his captors what they wished to Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 8.3.16.
944
know. When crucified, he too “met death with a smile.” Cf. Plato, Meno 81b (citing Pindar and others): “The
939
Or “regarding ironically.” Josephus has a large human soul is deathless (τὴν ψυχὴν . . . ἀθάνατον) and
investment in “irony” language, here κατειρωνεύοµαι, although it comes to an end, which is called death, it then
esp. in the War (1.84, 209; 2.26, 29, 153, 298, 522; lives again (πάλιν γίγνεσθαι) and is never destroyed.”
4.127, 152, 279, 334, 340, 342; 5.233, 242, 531; 7.270). Josephus’ Greek for describing the Essenes is: φθαρτὰ
Antiquities-Life has, by contrast, only 3 occurrences: Ant. µὲν εἶναι τὰ σώµατα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ µόνιµον αὐτῶν,
124 book two

they get entangled, having emanated from the most refined ether,945 as if drawn down by a
certain charm946 into the prisons that are bodies.947 155 But when they are released from the
restraints of the flesh,948 as if freed from a long period of slavery,949 then they rejoice and
are carried upwards in suspension.950 For the good, on the one hand, sharing the view of
the sons of Greece951 they portray the lifestyle952 reserved beyond Oceanus953 and a place954

946
τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους ἀεὶ διαµένειν. This closely Only here does Josephus use the word ἴυνξ.
matches his language elsewhere; cf. the remarkably simi- Although it literally indicates a kind of bird (wryneck),
lar observations in his own speech at Iotapata, which the practice of binding a iynx to a wheel in order to
agrees even in diction and µέν . . . δέ sentence struc- charm estranged lovers back to one another (Pindar,
ture (3.372): “Whereas indeed the bodies are mortal for Pyth. 4.213; Nem. 4.35) had the result that the word itself
all, and fashioned of perishable matter, a soul is forever had come to stand for “spell” or “charm” (Aristophanes,
deathless, and—a portion of God—takes up residence Lys. 1110; Xenophon, Mem. 3.11.17-18; Diogenes Laer-
in the bodies” (τὰ µέν γε σώµατα θνητὰ πᾶσιν καὶ ἐκ tius 6.76; Philostratus, V. Ap. 8.7); cf. English “jinx.” In
φθαρτῆς ὕλης δεδηµιούργηται, ψυχὴ δὲ ἀθάνατος ἀεὶ the context of romance, the word was often accompanied
καὶ θεοῦ µοῖρα τοῖς σῶµασιν ἐνοικίζεται). by ἕλκω (“draw, pull”) as here. So Xenophon and Pin-
945
Greek ἐκ τοῦ λεπτοτάτου φοιτώσας αἰθέρος. Cf. dar above; Theocritus, Id. 2.17, 22, 27, 42, 47, 52, 63;
the roughly symmetrical parallel in 6.47: Titus reassures Plutarch, Mor. 1093d; Lucian, Dom. 13; Aelian, Nat.
his despondent troops that “souls released from the flesh an. 1.23; 2.9; 2.21; 5.40; 6.31; 10.14 etc. By using such
by the sword on the battlefield are hospitably welcomed a colorful word in the context of souls being attracted
by the purest element, ether (τὸ καθαρώτατον στοιχεῖον toward bodies, in such an apparently original way, Jose-
αἰθήρ).” These are the only occurrences of αἰθήρ in phus continues to display learned wit.
947
Josephus, except for the quotation at Apion 2.11. In Cf. Josephus’ speech at Iotapata: a soul is “a por-
Homeric cosmology, ether was the upper region of the tion of God [that] takes up residence in the bodies” (θεοῦ
heaven or air (ἀήρ): Il. 14.288. The 1st-century CE Hera- µοῖρα τοῖς σῶµασιν ἐνοικίζεται; War 3.372). He often
clitus (All. Hom. 22.4) remarks that “the most refined speaks of death as therefore the liberation or release of
ether is fastened up (less likely “kindled”) by/from the the soul: War 1.84 [a body of shame detains the soul];
air” (τὸ λεπτότατον ἀπὸ ἀέρος αἰθὴρ ἀνάπτεται). In 6.47,7.344, 353 [Eleazar at Masada speaking]; Ant. 6.3;
the 3rd cent. CE Porphyry defines ether as “the air hav- Apion 2.203). Sievers (1998) collects the passages and
ing the most refined particles” (ἔστι γὰρ ὁ αἰθὴρ ἀὴρ offers concise analysis; cf. Mason 1991: 156-70. The
ὁ λεπτοµερέστατος; Peri agalm. 4.3). For ether as the background is broadly Platonic: Phaedo 65a; Crat. 400c
home of souls, cf. [Plato], Epin. 984c; Empedocles, (cf. Courcelle 1965); cf. the cave analogy of Resp. 514a-
Frag. 115.20 (the demiurge casts souls from the ether 518b. Note also Seneca (Ep. 24.4): “What, then? Am I
into the sea); Alexander Polyhistor, frag. 140.67 [Mül- free now? Look at this burdensome weight of a body to
ler] (they say that the soul is a fragment of the ether). A which Nature has bound me!”
948
Greek inscription (IG 1.442 noted in LSJ) remarks that Alexander Polyhistor vividly portrays the veins,
“souls are received by the ether, bodies by the earth.” arteries, and sinews of a body as the very restraints
The Indian interlocutor of Philostratus’ Apollonius (Vit. (δεσµά) that bind the ether-soul (Frag. 140.102-104
Apoll. 42, end) observes that Apollonius bears in his soul [Müller]).
949
a generous portion of ether. This seems to be a great That the body was a prison for the soul was a
compliment to him, rather than a comment on humanity commonplace in Platonic thought, as it is in Josephus
in general, for earlier (34) he had declared ether, as the (see note to “bodies” at 2.154).
5th element, the stuff of the Gods: what they inhale as 950
Greek µετεώρους φέρεσθαι. The verb and adjec-
mortals inhale air. tive form a well-attested pair, though not otherwise
Forms of λεπτός with αἰθήρ occur mainly in philo- in Josephus. A fable of Aesop (29) speaks prosaically
sophical fragments from Chrysippus (in Philo, Aet. mund. of a crow carrying its scavenged cheese (ἐν µετεώρῳ
102: in the great conflagration of the cosmos it will be φέρων).
951
resolved into “the most refined ether”; in Plutarch, Mor. On Greco-Roman views of the afterlife, see e.g.
[Fac. lun.] 928c: Stoics say that the luminous part of Cumont 1922; Moore 1963; Stettner 1933; Long 1948;
ether became sky, the condensed part stars, the most Glasson 1961; Jackson Knight 1970; Pater 1984; Caes
sluggish part the moon; cf. Mor. [Stoic. rep.] 1053a) and 1985; Beck 1999. This reference to Greeks in the 3 rd
Posidonius (Frag. 271c [Theiler]). person, developed below with mildly sarcastic or at least
book two 125

burdened by neither rain nor snow nor heat, but955 which a continually blowing mild west
wind956 from Oceanus957 refreshes.958 For the base, on the other hand, they separate off a
murky, stormy recess959 filled with unending retributions.960

distancing overtones (2.156), is characteristic of Jose- was an island across and surrounded by the Ocean (War
phus (see the notes to War 1.13-16), and it raises the 2.378; 6.331; cf. Florus 1.45.2, 16 and Mattern 1999:
question of his expected audience. The following phrases 115 n. 157). In Josephus’ day it was commonly asserted,
(through 2.156a) draw heavily from Hesiod’s famous hyperbolically, that the Roman empire had become effec-
passage concerning the 4th race in his description of the tively coextensive with the inhabited earth, and some
declining eons (Op. 156-78), perhaps also from Pindar; dreamed of travel beyond Oceanus. See Romm 1992:
see notes below. 9-44, 121-71.
952 954
This is an artful re-use of the word Josephus has Josephus at Iotapata: “the souls of those who
favored for the Essene “regimen” (δίαιτα; see note at die naturally are allotted the holiest heavenly place”
2.137). (χῶρος).
953 955
Compare the Greek here (τὴν ὑπὲρ ἀκεανὸν The passage evokes the image of the abode of the
δίαιταν) and that for “the heroes and demi-gods” as well Gods, Mt. Olympus, in Homer, Od. 6.43-6, which has
as “the Islands of the Blessed” in 2.156 (τὰς µακάρων “neither wind. . . , nor rain . . ., nor snow. . . but shining
νήσους) with Hesiod’s description of the 4th age (Op. bright air (αἴθρη) and white light.” At any rate, “beyond
169-170): “And they [the happy heroes] live, having a Oceanus” indicates a world entirely removed from the
carefree spirit, in the Islands of the Blessed alongside one known to mortals.
956
deep-flowing Oceanus” (καὶ τοὶ µὲν ναίουσιν ἀκηδέα This is the only reference to the zephyr (ζέφυρος)
θυµὸν ἔχοντες ἐν µακάρων νήσοισι παρ’ Ὠκεανὸν in Josephus. Hesiod had famously personified Zephyrus
βαθυδίνην). Oceanus was the vast water-body—some- and the other winds as divine beings (Theog. 378-80).
957
times called a “river,” but understood without a bank Although the syntax of the sentence appears to sug-
on the far side—that was generally thought to enclose gest this translation of ἐξ ὠκεανοῦ (“from Oceanus”),
the inhabited earth (cf. Hecataeus of Miletus, ca. 500 because of the need for anchoring the participle “blowing
BCE, in Jacoby 1a.1.F frag. 302b; Aristotle, Mund. over” and the finite verb “refreshes,” the compound verb
393b; Cicero, Rep. 6.20.21; Josephus, Ant. 1.130; 3.185; ἐξωκεανίζω in Strabo—who favors it—means rather
Romm 1992: 12-44; Dilke 1998: 13, 34-71). Herodotus’ “(to) place/locate beyond Oceanus” (Strabo 1.2.10, 17,
famous challenge did not make much of a dent in the 18, 35, 37, 40; 7.3.6; cf. Polybius 34.4.5; Aristonicus,
tradition (4.8; cf. 2.23; 4.36): “As for Oceanus, in dis- Sign. Odyss. 4.556), a usage that in this context would
course they say that it flows round the whole earth from parallel ὑπὲρ ὠκεανόν in the preceding clause.
958
where Helios [the sun] begins its rise, though they can- Cf. Pindar, Ol. 2.54-74 (B. L. Gildersleeve, trans.):
not demonstrate this in practice.” Early in the 1st century “Wealth adorned with excellence . . . is a brilliant star, a
CE Strabo pointedly reaffirms Homer’s conception of man’s true light, at least if one has and knows the future,
encircling Oceanus as both the region where the sun rises that the reckless souls of those who have died on earth
and the place where it sets. Mentioned often by Homer immediately pay the penalty--and for the crimes com-
(e.g., Il. 14.311; 16.151; 18.402) and Hesiod (e.g., mitted in this realm of Zeus there is a judge below the
Theog. 133, 265, 282, 294), this unexplored and myste- earth; with hateful compulsion he passes his sentence.
rious body of water, and the limits of social existence it But having the sun always in equal nights and equal
represented, were full of exotic possibilities—from the days, the good receive a life free from toil, not scraping
Hyperboreans and Homer’s Cimmerians to Plato’s Atlan- with the strength of their arms the earth, nor the water
tis and Euhemerus’ Panchaea (see note to “come up” at of the sea, for the sake of a poor sustenance. But in the
2.128). Oceanus was the subject of a lost book by the presence of the honored gods, those who gladly kept
polymath 1st-century BCE Stoic philosopher Posidonius their oaths enjoy a life without tears, while the others
(Strabo 2.2-3) and appears frequently in writers with undergo a toil that is unbearable to look at. Those who
geographical interests such as Diodorus and Strabo. have persevered three times, on either side, to keep their
Given that Philo uses the word “beyond-oceanish” souls free from all wrongdoing, follow Zeus’ road to the
(ὑπερωκεάνιος) for “strange, unworldly” (Conf. 134; end, to the tower of Cronus, where ocean breezes blow
Somn. 2.130), his remark that the Roman empire includes around the island of the blessed (ἔνθα µακάρων νᾶσον
not only what is within the Ocean but also lands beyond ὠκεανίδες αὖραι περιπνέοισιν·) . . . .”
959
it (Legat. 10) is all the more effective; he is possibly Greek ζοφώδη καὶ χειµέριον ἀφορίζονται µυχόν.
thinking of Britain (not yet taken in Philo’s time), for Although the final word might indicate a remote or
Josephus and others hold that Britain (now conquered) innermost room (cf. Thackeray in LCL, “tempestuous
126 book two

156 It was according to the same notion that the Greeks appear to me961 to have laid on
the Islands of the Blessed962 for their most courageous men, whom they call heroes and
demi-gods,963 and for the souls of the worthless964 the region of the impious965 in Hades, in
which connection they tell tales966 about the punishments of certain men967—Sisyphuses968

966
dungeon”; Josephus uses it of the Holy of Holies at Ant. Greek µυθολογέω. The only other occurrences of
3.142), it is hard to visualize a stormy chamber. In any this verb in Josephus (Apion 1.25, 105) has a clearly
case, the emphasis is on the contrast between the clear, pejorative sense: “to retail fables” (in contrast to histori-
sun-blessed, and temperate zone reserved for the good cal records or reliable evidence). In established usage
and the obscure, miserable place for the wicked. long before his time, this verb and cognate nouns (e.g.,
960
Greek γέµοντα τιµωριῶν αδιαλείπτων: see the µῦθος, µυθολογία) referred in the first instance—with-
similar phrases at 2.157 and 2.163, of the fate of the out necessarily any moral assessment—to the stories of
wicked in Essene and Pharisaic theology, respectively. heroes, Gods, and Demi-gods told by Homer, Hesiod,
961
Greek δοκοῦσι δὲ µοι: see the parallel in Polybius, and the early tragedians (Isocrates, Nic. 48-9; Plato, Pha-
discussed in the note to “retribution” at 2.157 below. edo 61b-e; Pol. 304c-d; Aristotle, Pol. 1284a, 1312a).
962
This image, along with several others in the The 4th-cent. BCE historians Ephorus and Theopompus,
immediate context, derives ultimately from Hesiod, Op. students of Isocrates, were known, notwithstanding much
169-170 (see note to “Oceanus” at 2.155 above). Never- praise for their writing, for recycling fables as history
theless, between Hesiod and Josephus many other writ- (e.g., Diodorus 1.9.5; 4.1.2-3; cf. Sacks 1990: 112). Plato
ers had mentioned blessed islands, notably Pindar (see had famously opposed such story-telling to truth, and
note to “refreshes” at 2.155), Plato with Atlantis, and so excluded the use of the classical poets, with their
Euhemerus with Panchaia (see the note to “come up” scandalous tales about the gods, from his ideal state
at 2.128). (Resp. 377b-378d, 388e-392d; cf. Phaedr. 229b-c, 276e).
963
Greek τοῖς τε ἀνδρείοις αὐτῶν, οὓς ἥρωας καὶ Diodorus makes telling and relevant use of µυθολογία
ἡµιθέους καλοῦσιν. Cf. Hesiod’s famous 4th age of in his moralizing prologue (1.2.2): if even the fabricated
humanity, described at Op. 159-60 (see note to “Oceanus” (πεπλασµένη) stories of Hades incite men to virtue, how
at 2.155 above): “a divine race of hero men, who are much more will history, which deals in truth, train the
called demi-gods” (ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων θεῖον γένος, οἳ character for excellence? Seneca (Ep. 24.18) likewise
καλέονται ἡµίθεοι). The two terms are often used either hesitates before mentioning Ixion, Sisyphus, and (the
interchangeably or in overlapping senses: of Homer’s and punishment of) Tityus, after noting Epicurus’ attack on
Hesiod’s characters (Plato, Crat. 398c; Theocritus, Idyll. such ideas about the Gods.
17.5; Diodorus 4.1.1, 1.4-5, 85.7; 5.49; 17.1.4; Philo, Elsewhere in his writings Josephus comments bitingly
Congr. 16.1; Plutarch, Mor. [Def. or.] 415b; Dio Chrys- on the unseemly character of Greek mythology in its
ostom, Or. 2.7; 31.17, 92; 33.2; Lucian, Men. 15; Aelius portrayal of the divine: Ant. 1.15, 22; Apion 2.239-41 (cf.
Herodian, Part. p. 52) or the founders and great figures Feldman ad loc. in BJP 3, Barclay in BJP 10). In the last
of Rome’s past (Diodorus 37.11.1). Although Josephus is passage he remarks that virtually all Greek thinkers have
comparing Essene and Greek beliefs here, his language censured the poets in this respect. For another barbarian
distances himself from the Greek conceptions (“laid association of Greeks with tale-telling, see the Egyptians
on,” “they call,” “they tell tales,” the plural names of the in Diodorus 1.25.4 (but Plutarch on Egyptian mythol-
impious in Hades, etc.). On “heroes,” cf. Theophrastus, ogy at Mor. [Is. Osir.] 360a). Note Josephus’ implicit
Char. 16.4: the superstitious person, on seeing a certain contrast between the Greeks’ mythologizing here and
poisonous snake, erects a hero-sanctuary on the spot. A the Essenes’ much more respectable theologizing (“dis-
minor work by the 3rd-cent. CE Philostratus, Ἡρωικός course concerning God”) at 2.158.
967
(Heroicus), deals critically with the Homeric heroes of Homer (Od. 11.576-600) describes the terrible
the Trojan War; cf. Aitken and Maclean 2001, 2004. suffering of 3 (i.e., not Ixion’s) of these formerly great
964
Or “the wretched, rotten, useless, base, evil” (οἱ kings in Hades, as witnessed by Odysseus, listing them
πονηροί), extended from the literal sense of “weighed in reverse order: Tityus lying in the plain, with vultures
down, oppressed,” thence “wearisome, grievous”: a use- constantly tearing at his liver; Tantalus unable to eat or
fully vague stock category in Josephus and many ancient drink, though surrounded by water and food; Sisyphus
authors (cf. 2.258, 273, 275, 304, 352, 538, 539). laboring endlessly to push his rock up over a hill. Plato
965
For this phrase as descriptor of Hades, see Philo, mentions the same 3, referring to Homer, as examples
Cher. 3; Plutarch, Mor. [Soll. anim.] 975b; esp. Lucian, of those whose permanent suffering in Hades, though
Ver. hist. 2.26; Cat. 12; Men. 12; Luct. 8. they themselves are beyond help, serves as a deterrent
book two 127

and Tantaluses,969 Ixions970 and Tityuses971—establishing in the first place the [notion of]
eternal souls and, on that basis, persuasion toward virtue and dissuasion from vice. 972
157 For the good become even better in the hope of a reward also after death, whereas
the impulses of the bad are impeded by anxiety, as they expect that even if they escape
detection while living, after their demise they will be subject to deathless retribution.973

to new arrivals there (Gorg. 525b-e)—apparently on the 1.759ff. His punishment (see note to “men” above) is
assumption that these may be swayed toward virtue and aimed at the seat of desire, the liver.
972
reincarnated with better hopes. Lucretius (3.978-1023) Josephus appears to be aware (perhaps at second
interprets the 3 as allegories of the human passions. hand) of Plato, Gorg. 525b-e, where Plato draws out the
Although Ixion is not mentioned in these adaptations paradigmatic value of these heinous criminals and their
of Homer, it was natural to include him because of eternal punishment for all other criminals who arrive in
the similarity of his permanent, horrible punishment. Hades—who, unlike the examples, still have a chance
Josephus’ older contemporary Seneca, indeed, mentions of reform. See the note to “certain men” in this section.
Ixion, Sisyphus, and Tityus (the last implied), along with For the utilitarian connotations, see the note to “retribu-
Cerberus, in his letter on despising death (Ep. 24.18). tion” at 2.157.
973
Since Josephus appears to be the first extant writer to For similar phrases to “deathless retribution” (here
make this grouping of 4; Lucian (Men. 14) will do the ἀθάνατον τιµωρίαν), see 2.155 (of Essenes) and 2.163
same a couple of generations later (cf. his Pod. 11, which (of Pharisees). Outside of Josephus the closest paral-
omits Tityus). lel appears to be in Philo, Spec. 3.84 (τὸ τῆς τιµωρίας
968
This apparently sarcastic use of plural names in ἀθάνατον), another example of Josephus’ “Philonic”
lists of famous Greeks is paralleled in Apion 2.154, where language in War 2.
Josephus mentions among Greek lawgivers “Lycurguses This utilitarian assessment of belief in a deity or
and Solons.” Sisyphus was the legendary founding king divine punishment after death, which anticipates early
of Corinth, who cheated death first by binding Death modern philosophy, is not found much before Jose-
in chains and then by conspiring with his wife Merope phus. Its earliest attestation seems to be in a fragment
not to perform the proper rituals after his removal to of the play Sisyphus, perhaps by Critias or Euripides
the underworld, from which he was therefore released. (Döring 1978: 43). Outside these fragments and Polybius
Death had been sent his way by Zeus, in punishment for (below), Klaus Döring can point to partial parallels only
having revealed Zeus’ secret (that the latter had abducted in Isocrates (11.24-7), though in connection with Egyp-
Asopus’ daughter). Cf. Theognis 1.701-12. For his pun- tian religion, Varro (preserved in Augustine [Civ. Dei
ishment, see note to “men” above. 4.27, 31; 6.4-6]), and Cicero, though only with respect
969
Tantalus offended the gods in some fundamental to augury (Div. 2.28, 43, 70, 74, 75, 148).
way to do with eating. One of the famous stories (Pindar, The closest parallels in general point and spirit are
Ol. 1.46-58) claims that he invited the Gods to dinner in Polybius, who speaks of the Roman constitution’s
and served up his son Pelops, dissected and boiled. For unique incorporation of piety and ritual, and Diodorus.
his punishment, see note to “men” above. Polybius makes the remarkable claim—prefaced with a
970
Ixion, who does not appear with the other 3 in self-conscious series of 3 “it seems to me” phrases—that
Odysseus’ vision of Hades (Od. 11.576ff.: see next note), what is an object of reproach among others, supersiti-
is less frequently mentioned in classical sources: Homer, tion (δεισιδαιµονία), is actually what holds the Roman
Il. 14.317; Pindar, Pyth. 2.21-48; Eur. Herc. 1298; commonwealth together (6.56.7-12): “They seem to me
Phoen. 1185; Aristotle, Poet. 1456a. This legendary (ἐµοί γε µὴν δοκοῦσι) to have done this for the sake of
king of Thessaly and paradigmatic criminal (humanity’s the rabble. For if the commonwealth had comprised wise
first parricide) repaid his patron, Zeus, by attempting to men, perhaps this device would not have been neces-
rape the latter’s consort Hera. His punishment was to be sary. But since every rabble is fickle and full of criminal
bound forever to the revolving wheel of fire. Josephus’ desires, irrational hatred, and a violent spirit, it is left
inclusion of him with the other 3 anticipates Lucian, for the masses to be restrained by invisible fears and
Men. 14, and later writers. such drama as this. For this reason it seems to me that
971
Tityus was a giant, son of Earth, who was sent the ancients did not introduce notions concerning the
to the underworld by Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, or some gods or about the terrors of Hades carelessly and as if
combination, according to different legends, for having by chance; rather, that people today carelessly and irra-
sexually assaulted Leto, mother of the last two Gods tionally expunge them.” Diodorus, perhaps influenced
mentioned. See Hyginus, Fab. 55; Apollonius of Rhodes by Posidonius, gives the same impression: belief in
128 book two

158 These matters, then, the Essenes theologize974 with respect to the soul, laying down
an irresistible bait975 for those who have once tasted of their wisdom.976
Essene (8.12) 159 There are also among them those who profess to foretell what is to come,977
predictive
abilities
being thoroughly trained978 in holy books,979 various purifications,980 and concise sayings981

976
punishment after death is a necessary means of social As Gerlach (1863: 8) observed long ago, this edi-
control. Diodorus 1.2.2 is discussed in the note to “tell torial remark strongly suggests that our author wished
tales” (2.156). See also Diodorus 34/35.2.47: “It is to identify himself with the Essenes. But this does not
surely to the advantage of common life that supersti- mean that he, a statesman beyond such narrow affilia-
tion (δεισιδαιµονία) concerning the Gods is imprinted tion, wished to be seen as a school member. The many
in the souls of the many. For there are but few who parallels with Apion 2.146-295 (see Excursus) and the
behave honestly on account of innate virtue; the great verbal parallels with his own views elsewhere (preceding
mass of humanity hold back from criminal conduct only notes) show that he understands the Essenes, who seem
because of legal penalties and the retributions from God” to be well known outside Judea, as the embodiment of
(34/35.2.47). Judean values.
977
Contrast Josephus’ contemporary, Plutarch—albeit The foregoing description of the Essenes was
addressing fellow-élites and apparently not considering prompted in part by the story of one of their number who
the needs of ordinary people. Arguing that superstition had accurately predicted Archelaus’ downfall (2.112-13).
(δεισιδαιµονία) is worse than atheism, he says that the This link with prediction was first established in 1.78-80,
fear it engenders does not end with death: “it attaches where an Essene seer predicted Aristobulus I’s murder of
to death the conception of undying evils (κακῶν . . . his brother Antigonus in “Strato’s Tower.”
978
ἀθανάτων; cf. Josephus’ ἀθάνατον τιµωρίαν; 2.157), Or “inwardly trained, inculcated.” The compound
and just when he [the superstitious person] ceases from verb ἐµπαιδοτριβέω is exceedingly rare, and unattested
the affairs of life, it seems to begin those affairs that before this, its only occurrence in Josephus. Aside from
never cease” (Mor. [Superst.] 166f-167a). At 170f. Plu- 1 example in the (3rd-cent. CE) Cassius Dio (77.21.2),
tarch even mentions Tantalus as an ironic example: the the next nearest appearances are in quotations of this
superstitious person would be as pleased to be free of passage (Porphyry, Abst. 4.13; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.3
his fear as Tantalus would be to come out from under [407c]). More common is the simpler παιδοτριβέω,
his rock. which means “train in gymnastics” (a παιδοτρίβης being
974
The verb θεολογέω is rare before Josephus, though a gym or a wrestling teacher). Josephus continues to
attested as early as the pre-Socratics (Thales, Test. fr. imply a rigorous, athletic sort of training.
12; cf. Pherecydes, Frag. 2.8; 4.12; Aristotle, Met. 983b; Of the concrete examples of Essene prediction thus
Mund. 391b; Hecataeus of Abdera in Jacoby 3a.264.F far in War (1.78-80; 2.113): in the former, the Ἐσσαῖος
frag. 25 l. 256; Diodorus 1.23.7, 29.6, 86.2, etc.; Philo, taught his art in the temple court, confirming the impres-
Opif. 12), and he uses it only here. More common is the sion that accurate prediction was a matter of long train-
noun θεολογία, which Josephus has 3 times in Apion ing, not merely spontaeneous inspiration. Antiquities
(1.78, 225, 238). Note the implicit contrast, in spite of (13.311; 15.371-78; 17.346) will continue this portrayal
the formal parallel adduced, between what Essenes do of Essene prediction as a special skill. Some scholars,
(“theologize”) and what Greeks do (“mythologize”): on partly reflecting their concern to establish underlying
the latter, see the note to “tell tales” at 2.156. sources, have sensed differences between Josephus’
975
See the note at 2.54. This (δέλεαρ) is a common wording in this passage and his narrative descriptions of
word in War 1-2 (5 occurrences), though after that it Essene prediction (Gray 1993: 105-6; Bergmeier 1993:
appears only at Apion 2.284. In that passage, as in other 54-55). But the few words of War 2.159 can hardly bear
authors (Plato Tim. 69d; Soph. 222e; [Longinus], Subl. such weight; further, it seems pointless to apply theologi-
32.5; Plutarch, Cato Maj. 2.4), Josephus assumes that cal rigor to a rhetorical historian.
979
evil and pleasure are seductive—cf. Plutarch, who speaks Greek βίβλοις ἱεραῖς . . . ἐµπαιδοτριβούµενοι.
of flatterers destroying the young élite by “dangling the “Holy books” is a common Josephan phrase: Ant. 1.26,
irresistible bait (δέλεαρ αφύλακτον) of pleasure before 82, 139; 2.347; 3.81, 105; 4.326; 9.28 et passim. He
them” (Mor. [Educ.] 13a). But Josephus implies there will later insist upon his own ability to predict the
what he says plainly here: Judeans [Essenes] are enticed future with precision, which he does precisely on the
rather by high-minded theological conceptions. Cf. Ant. basis of his training in the holy books’ prophetic state-
18.14-15, where it is the Pharisees’ similar views of the ments: “With respect to assessing dreams, he was quite
afterlife that commend them to the masses. capable of making coherent the ambiguous utterances of
book two 129

of prophets.982 Rarely if ever do they fail983 in their predictions.984

(8.13) 160 There is also a different order of Essenes.985 Though agreeing with the Marrying
Essenes

the Deity: he knew well the prophetic statements of the that seer had never once made a mistake or lied in his
holy books (ἱερῶν βίβλων), being both a priest himself predictions.
985
and a descendant of priests” (War 3.352). In War 6.312 Josephus’ account of the Essenes appears formally
Josephus actually interprets such an “ambiguous” state- complete at this point. With due regard for his distinc-
ment “in the holy writings” (ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράµµασιν). tive language and emphases, they sound roughly like
Prediction from Scripture is thus a subject in which he the likewise emphatically celibate Essenes of Philo (in
is plainly interested (cf. 3.405)—not one that he would Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.11: “no Essene takes a woman”)
likely pass over if it had appeared in his sources. Indeed, and Pliny (Nat. 5.73: sine ulla femina), as of Josephus
Josephus and individual Essenes (possibly with Jesus himself in the later parallel (Ant. 18.21: “they do not
son of Ananias, 6.300-309) are the only parties after conclude marriages”). It comes as a surprise, then, that
John Hyrcanus in the 2nd century BCE (Ant. 13.299-300) he should casually introduce “a different order” of Ess-
whom he credits with accurate prediction. enes who marry, though they reportedly agree with the
980
The ἁγνεία/ἁγνεύω word-group is highly signif- others in every other respect of thought and practice.
icant for Josephus (War 1.26; 5.194; 7.264, etc.). We Having made such a clear case against marriage in the
should assume, it seems, that purification is a prerequi- foregoing description (2.120-21), he must now explain
site for divine revelation: cf. Exod 19:10-15. why these Essenes marry.
981
Greek προφητῶν ἀποφθέγµασιν. This is the only Scholars often remark that Josephus describes two
occurrence in Josephus of ἀπόφθεγµα (here plural and kinds of Essenes: marrying and celibate. But that is a
connected with the prophets). The sense of the word, rather neater picture than he gives, for he does not say
barely distinguishable from the chreia or “useful say- at the outset, where we should expect it, that “there are
ing” that provided material for manipulation in rhetori- two kinds of Essenes”; nor does he anticipate this group
cal education (Aelius Theon, Prog. 60), is perhaps best where one might expect a comparison. Contrast his intro-
illustrated by Plutarch’s collections: Apophthegms of the duction of 3 schools at 2.119, in keeping with normal
Spartans and of Kings and Commanders, respectively. rhetorical practice, even though Pharisees and Sadducees
An apophthegm was a pithy, pregnant saying located will not be discussed until the end. Instead, he describes
in a briefly described context. The term appears often the Essene order (2.119-59) as though everything applied
in conjunction with “Laconian” (or Spartan; cf. Eng- to them all, and as if celibacy were fundamental to their
lish “laconic”) or with βραχυ- (“short”) words, for the other virtues—the clearest example of imperviousness to
Spartans were renowned for their detestation of long the passions (2.120-21). In describing the Essene practice
speeches. They trained their young to speak with conci- of adopting others’ children because they do not produce
sion (see the admiring discussion and examples in Plu- their own (2.120), for example, he might at least have
tarch, Lyc. 19-20). anticipated this group of Essenes with their different
982
Josephus’ use of προφητ- terminology is quite solution. The “different order,” which differs fundamen-
restrictive: he means by it the ancient authors of the tally, appears as an afterthought with respect to content
Judean holy books (the Scriptures) and some of their (though suiting the passage’s concentric structure).
inspired ancient contemporaries. The very few excep- Moreover, the internal logic of this addendum is puz-
tions may come from his sources (Ant. 1.240; Apion zling. How can these marrying Essenes claim that the
1.312). John Hyrcanus (late 2nd cent. BCE) is Josephus’ whole genos would die out if they were celibate (2.160),
exception: this remarkable man was the last credited with when the main Essenes have already faced and dealt
exercising the “prophetic gift” (προφητεία; War 1.68; with that problem, by adoption? What has become of the
Ant. 13.300): after him there have been only false proph- Essenes’ utter mistrust of women (2.120), which lay at
ets (War 2.26; 6.286; Ant. 20.97, 169). In spite of their the heart of their virtues? And crucially: How is it pos-
abilities in precise prediction, neither the Essenes nor sible for these marrying Essenes to follow all the other
Josephus himself receives the label “prophet(s)” from prescriptions and customs of the rest, if they cannot live
him. See further Blenkinsopp 1974; Feldman 1990; Gray celibate lives and share all things as the celibate males
1993: 20-26. do? Josephus’ complete failure to explain how the mar-
983
Josephus uses ἀστοχέω only here and at War rying Essenes live, aside from their bathing habits, is a
4.116; 5.61. It was something of a Polybian favorite: he puzzle. The mystery is exacerbated by what seems his
accounts for 9 of the 28 attestations before Josephus. defensive tone: although these Essenes do marry, they
984
Josephus remarks likewise, of the Essene who still regard women in the properly disparaging way. They
foretold Aristobulus’ murder of Antigonus (1.78), that are not soft!
130 book two

others about regimen986 and customs and legal matters,987 it has separated in its opinion
about marriage. For they hold that those who do not marry cut off the greatest part of
life,988 the succession,989 and more: if all were to think the same way, the line990 would
very quickly die out.991 161 To be sure, testing the brides in a three-year interval,992 once

Bergmeier (1993: 68), who attributes the main pas- rying group might best explain its peculiar features.
986
sage to Josephus’ sources, assumes that the marrying See the note to this important word at 2.137.
987
Essenes must come from yet another source. But the Greek ἔθη καὶ νόµιµα, a frequent conceptual pair-
unity of language between War 2.119-59 and 2.160, and ing in Josephus, with largely overlapping meanings (also
between this addendum and Josephus’ outlook elsewhere with νόµοι, laws); cf. Mason 1991: 100-102.
988
(e.g., about the purpose of marriage), seems to close that Possibly “the most important function of life”
escape route. Since the narrative is clearly his, and yet (µέγιστον . . . τοῦ βίου µέρος), though the phrase µέρος
it throws up both historical and literary problems, it is βίου often appears, sometimes with “large” or “greater”
possible that he has simply invented marrying Essenes or a numerical fraction, for actual parts or components
for momentary purposes, which he will ignore again in of one’s life (Aristotle, Probl. 956b; Polybius 3.19.9;
his later account. There is demonstrably a good deal of 16.21.7; Philo, Det. 74.4; Abr. 155; Marcus Aurelius,
whole-cloth invention in his own life story (see BJP 9 Med. 3.4.1; 8.24.1)
989
Introduction), his biblical paraphrase, his speeches, and The issue of marriage and human succession
much of his dramatic narratives. So we should not be (διαδοχή) here creates an inclusio with 2.120-121,
shocked at the prospect of invention. Possible reasons for which began the Essene passage. The closest linguistic
creating Essenes who marry are not hard to conjure. parallels, linking marriage and succession of children,
In bringing forward the celibate Essenes as ideal rep- seem to be from the 2nd-cent. CE authors Soranus (Gyn.
resentatives of his nation, widely distributed among the 1.34, who makes it the sole purpose of marriage) and
cities, Josephus might have realized that such an ideal Hierocles (Frag. eth., pg. 56 ln. 5). In the preceding sec-
lifestyle would seem impractical for a whole culture. tions of the narrative, the word διαδοχή has been used
Roman aristocrats could admire philosophical ideals, frequently, but in relation to the problem of Herod’s royal
and even go off as young men to join a radical philos- succession: 1.458, 503, 552, 587, 637; 2.2, 15, 26, 37,
ophal society, but they were expected to come back into 87-88. It is quite possible that Josephus intends a contrast
the world of grown-up politics (cf. Tacitus, Agr. 4.3). between these philosophers, who are not fundamentally
Celibate life was too extreme for ordinary living. It concerned even about pursuing basic human succession,
was the common assumption among both Judeans (cf. and the diadem-driven would-be monarchs, lusting after
Gen 1:26) and Romans that marriage was the neces- royal succession in the preceding story.
990
sary social norm, even if exclusively (as here) for pro- Or “type, race” (τὸ γένος); cf. Lat. genus. See the
creation. Augustus’ measures to increase marriage rates notes to “type” at 2.113 and “ancestry” at 2.119—both
were clearly aimed at raising the level of reproduction cases where Josephus has recently used γένος of Ess-
in Rome, not at enhancing personal or connubial fulfill- enes. Possibly he is being deliberately ambiguous here,
ment. Describing those measures, Tacitus (Ann. 3.25) as to whether it is the order that would die out, if no
and Cassius Dio (54.16.1-2) speak of “marriage and the Essene married, or the (human) “race”—if no one at all
procreation/rearing of children” as if there were little dis- were to marry.
991
tinction. If Josephus wished to make the Essenes plausi- This group of Essenes thus adopts a Spartan-like
ble to his Roman audiences, it made sense to leave open solution to the dilemma that, although ideal asceticism
a marriage option, if strictly for reproductive purposes. in Greco-Roman terms would avoid the distractions of
And since he has indicated his own profound admiration women (cf. 2.119-120), such a regimen would quickly
for this group (2.158), expressing through them the traits end in the absence of men. Just as the Spartans solved this
of the national character, it might help to leave open problem by requiring marriage for the purposes of breed-
a way in which he too—though several times married ing only, still prohibiting settled married life for men in
and a father (Life 426-28)—could be thought to practice their prime (who could make only furtive conjugal visits
Essene-like behavior. to their wives: Xenophon, Lac. 1.5-10), so later Roman-
On any accounting this unassimilated addendum, still era authors value marriage preeminently for the sake of
marked by Josephus’ language and integrated into the children: liberorum procreandorum causa (PMich, vol.
larger concentric structure of the Essene passage, is puz- 7, document 434, r, 3; PRyl., vol. 4, document 612 ext. 3;
zling. That Josephus invented a vaguely conceived mar- cf. Frier 1999: 95). Tacitus (Ann. 3.25) and Cassius Dio
book two 131

they have been purified three times993 as a test of their being able to bear children,994 they
take them in this manner;995 but they do not continue having intercourse with those who
are pregnant,996 demonstrating that the need for marrying is not because of pleasure, but
for children.997 Baths [are taken] by the women wrapping clothes around themselves, just
as by the men in a waist-covering.998 Such are the customs of this order.999
(8.14) 1621000 Now, of the former two [schools],1001 Pharisees,1002 who are reputed1003 Pharisees and
Sadducees

(54.16.1-2) conflate “marriage and the procreation/rear- nant woman. In BJP 10 ad loc., however, Barclay offers
ing of children” and Josephus’ younger contemporary detailed analysis and concludes that the passage is con-
Soranus insists that men and women couple in marriage cerns the impurity contracted from a corpse, even that
not for “the enjoyment of pleasurable sensations” but for of a stillborn or aborted fetus. Nevertheless, Josephus’
“the sake of children and succession” (διαδοχή; Gyn. earlier remark there, that intercourse is permitted only
3.24.1). The same idea, perhaps grounded in the basic for the sake of procreation (Apion 2.199), would, if taken
command to multiply (Gen 1:26), is found throughout to its logical corollary, preclude sex during pregnancy.
997
Judean literature of the Roman period (cf. Barclay, note On the purpose of marriage as breeding (τεκνο-
to “procreation” at Apion 2.199 in BJP 10). Josephus ποιία) only, see the note to “die out” in 2.160.
998
will make the same claims for all Judeans at Ant. 4.261 This piece of clothing, distinctive of the order,
and Apion 2.199: intercourse is permitted “only if it is has been introduced at 2.129, 137. Male bathing is thus
with the intention of procreation.” apparently no different in celibate or marrying groups:
992
This recalls the 3-year probation for male novices whether or not women are present, men wear the waist-
described above (2.137-38). Josephus is one of the first cloth for decorum.
999
attested users of this word (τριετία), which he will use “This order” is perhaps deliberately ambiguous.
once again (Ant. 19.351). First attested in Theophrastus It must refer at least to the marrying Essenes of the
(Caus. plant. 1.20.4) and then Philo (Virt. 156, 158), preceding paragraph, since they have been introduced as
it becomes popular with Josephus’ contemporaries and a “different order.” Yet Josephus names only 3 schools,
later authors (Plutarch, Tib. Gai. Grac. 23.9; Dem. Ant. and since this sentence also marks the transition to the
6.3; Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.54 [Kaibel]; Acts 20:31). The remaining two (the Sadducees are also an “order” here),
Latin equivalent triennium is much more widely used he may be referring to the larger Essene order.
1000
from an earlier date (by Plautus, Cicero, and Caesar). The following comparison between Pharisees and
993
This appears to be a reference to purification fol- Sadducees as affirmers and deniers of respective philo-
lowing menstruation, which the rabbis understood to sophical positions (Fate, survival of the soul, post-mor-
involve complete immersion in the ritual bath (miqveh) tem rewards and punishments, mutual affection), with
7 days after the last sign of menstruation (b. Nidd. 66a). the Essenes already covered as sui generis, is drasti-
There could, then, be little chance of error in determining cally modified in Ant. 13.171-73, where the Essenes and
that the girl had in fact passed puberty. But if purifica- Sadducees assume the pole positions and the Pharisees
tion after menstruation is the referent, the relationship occupy the middle. Ant. 18.12-20 is something of a mix-
between these 3 cycles and the 3-year interval just men- ture: it accommodates all 3 schools with roughly equal
tioned remains unclear. space (though the Essenes still outshine the others), and
994
The Mishnah contemplates, at least for legal pur- the most obvious contrasts are between Pharisees and
poses, the possibility of marriage involving a woman Sadducees, but the sharpness of the contrast is dimin-
who has not yet menstruated (Nidd. 1.4; 10.1; cf. b. Nidd. ished there. The effort to map schools across a spectrum
66a), and that the discovery of sterility might occur only of belief, concerning Fate, is paralleled in Cicero (Fat.
around age 18 or 20 (after marriage: 5.9). These Essenes, 39) and Tacitus (Ann. 6.22).
1001
then, ostentatiously ensure that a woman is fertile before Cf. 2.119, which introduced Pharisees, Saddu-
marriage, to stress the exclusive purpose of the union. cees, and Essenes, in that order, before the great Essene
995
Both the content and the structure of this sentence digression.
1002
recall Josephus’ description of males’ admission to the Of the vast scholarship on the Pharisees, see esp.
order at 2.137-38: in each case the candidate is taken in Neusner 1971; Rivkin 1978; Saldarini 1988; Mason
after much testing in the course of 3 years (δοκιµάζω, 1991; Grabbe 1992; Sanders 1992; Stemberger 1995;
πεῖρα). Neusner and Chilton 2007.
996 1003
The difficult text at Apion 2.202 has often been Possibly, though less likely, “imagine themselves
read as similarly declaring impure (in the case of all to interpret. . .”; see the note to “reputed” at 2.119—the
Judeans) any man who has sexual relations with a preg- opening sentence on Essenes (note the symmetry of
132 book two

to interpret the legal matters with precision,1004 and who constitute1005 the first school,1006
attribute everything to Fate and indeed to God:1007 163 although doing and not [doing]
what is right1008 rests mainly with the human beings,1009 Fate also assists in each case.1010

2.119-66)—and Mason 1991: 106-13. This construc- “Fate” (ἡ εἱµαρµένη) does not appear in Herodotus,
tion recalls the similar introduction of the Pharisees at Thucydides, the tragedians, or Diodorus; it occurs only
War 1.110 (see notes there), where their reputation for 3 times in Polybius, 5 in Dionysius, once in Strabo
precision in the laws appears to be contradicted by the (Plutarch has some 101 occurrences). Before Josephus’
accompanying story. time the word was used most often by philosophers (pre-
1004
Greek µετ’ ἀκριβείας δοκοῦντες ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ Socratics, Plato, and esp. the Stoics Zeno and Chrysip-
νόµιµα. The major terms here recall the first descrip- pus; an essay by Cicero, De fato, is extant). The 20
tion of the Pharisees at 1.110, δοκοῦν . . . τοὺς νόµους occurrences in Josephus qualify him as a heavy user,
ἀκριβέστερον ἀφηγεῖσθαι, and anticipate Josephus’ especially among historians. Of these 20 cases, more
final mention of the group in Life 191 (οἳπερὶτὰπάτρια than a third (7) fall in the brief descriptions of the philo-
νόµιµα δοκοῦσιν τῶν ἄλλων ἀκρίβείᾳ διαφέρειν (cf. sophical schools, as here. Subtracting these, we find Fate
also Ant. 17.41). See notes to 1.110 and BJP 9 ad loc; most often in War —9 times, against 3 in Antiquities and
Mason 1991: 82-113, 130-32. It seems that we have to 1 in Apion—and it turns up in important places.
do with the Pharisees’ popular esteem for their seeming In 6 occurrences in the context of the temple’s destruc-
precision in interpreting the laws, which the aristocratic tion, it appears in close proximity to “God,” as also here.
legal expert Josephus either mentions without explicit In War 6.108, Josephus chastises himself for trying to
comment (as here) or openly disparage, according to save the rebels, those whom God has condemned in
context.
1005
spite of Fate. God had sentenced the temple to flames,
Greek [τὴν πρώτην] ἀπάγοντες [αἵρεσιν]. The
and then the “fated” day arrived, for there is no escape
use of ἀπάγω (“lead or take away, off, astray”) with
from Fate (6.250, 267). Josephus marvels at Fate’s pre-
αἵρεσις is odd if the sense is meant to be as neutral as
cision in choosing the date of the temple’s destruction
translated here, for it normally has to do with carrying
(6.268). It was equally divine providence and a “certain
off prisoners in war-time (Ant. 10.83, 98; 11.61) or cattle
just Fate” that granted Vespasian hegemony (4.622; cf.
(War 3.452; 5.65; Ant. 5.167; 8.294; 9.191), without the
consent of the carried, or the withdrawal of troops from Ant. 19.347). One need not make a systematic theologian
a siege (Ant. 7.290, 393; 8.365). The phrasing is not of Josephus to observe that he uses “Fate” with some
attested outside of Josephus before the 4th-cent. CE John consistency, as a force or principle closely allied with
of Chrysostom, for whom it is likewise a “carrying off ”: God. Plainly, Josephus would identify himself with the
ἀπάγειν αὐτους τῆς πονηρᾶς ἐκείνης αἱρέσεως (Christ. position attributed to the Pharisees here, to the Essenes
prec. 48.793.37). In his aborted Lexicon Thackeray fol- elsewhere.
1008
lowed Hudson’s conjectural emendation to ἐπάγω, which Although this phrase (τὸ πράττειν τὰ δίκαια
has a much wider range of positive associations than the καὶ µή) sounds formulaic, the last 4 words do not
ἀπό prefix. If we remain with the wording attested in all seem to appear elsewhere as a fixed phrase. The first
the MSS, however, it would seem that Josephus intends a phrase, “doing the right thing,” is found in Aristotle,
negative sense. The Pharisees carry or lead off (astray?) Eth. nic. 1105b; Lucian, Anach. 22. More common is the
the followers of their school. sequence “(the) doing or not (doing)” ([τὸ] πράττειν καὶ
1006
“First” might refer to the Pharisees’ antiquity in µὴ [πράττειν]): Plato, Resp. 433a; Demosthenes, Phil.
relation to the others, their status as “leading” school, or 3.8; Anaximenes, Rhet. 17.2; Aristotle, Rhet. 1373b;
simply their first place on the list that began the discus- Arius Didymus, Philos. 65.2. The δικ- word group can
sion of philosophy in 2.119. These options represented be translated variously—“righteousness, justice, right-
by the translations of Reinach, Thackeray, and M-B ness, fairness, conformity to law or custom”—, and in
respectively. See also Mason 1991: 129-31. biblical and Christian texts often leans toward “righ-
1007
This mirrors the Stoic view (cf. Life 12) that teousness,” but Josephus employs this prominent word-
“everything is caused by Fate” (omnia fato fiunt: Cicero, group usually in the more mundane Greco-Roman senses
Fat. 40-1; Diogenes Laertius 7.149). In Ant. 13.171-73, of justice, propriety, uprightness, fairness. See Mason
however, it is the Essenes who attribute everything to 1991: 142-49.
1009
Fate—the Pharisees attributing some things but not oth- Greek ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κεῖσθαι. The use of
ers (οὐ πάντα)—, though Ant. 18.13 will realign things κείµαι with ἐν or ἐπί to mean “that which is one’s power
much as here. Cf. Mason 1991: 133-42. This term for or prerogative” is common in Josephus: War 3.389, 396;
book two 133

Although every soul is imperishable,1011 only that of the good passes over to a different
body,1012 whereas those of the vile are punished by eternal retribution.1013 164 Sadducees,
the second order, 1014 do away with Fate altogether1015 and place God beyond both the com-

5.59; Ant. 1.178; 5.110; 13.355; 18.215; 19.167. Note views, including apparently Josephus’ own: see 2.154
also the similar phrasing for the Sadducean position and notes.
1012
below (2.165) and in Ant. 13.173. Aristotle had long Greek µεταβαίνειν δὲ εἰς ἕτερον σῶµα τὴν τῶν
before elaborated the ethical category of “what lies in ἀγαθῶν µόνην. According to the parallel in Ant. 18.14,
human power” with similar language: “When the origin similarly, Pharisees hold that the souls of the virtuous
of an action is in oneself, it is also in one’s power to do encounter “an easy path to living again” (ῥαστώνην τοῦ
it or not (ἐπ’ αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ πράττειν καὶ µή)” (Eth. nic. ἀναβιοῦν). On this point the Pharisees appear to depart
3.1.6). In particular, Aristotle conventionalizes the phrase from the Essene position, which envisions a spiritual
(τὸ) ἐφ’ ἡµῖν for “what is up to us” (Eth. nic. 3.5.2). home beyond Oceanus for the souls of the righteous—a
1010
Greek βοηθεῖν δὲ εἰς ἕκαστον καὶ τὴν εἱµα- view that Josephus explicitly compares with Greek
ρµένην. The verb βοηθέω recalls Stoic discussions of notions (2.155). The difference may not be as great as
the role of Fate in human actions. After Socrates’ reputed it seems, however, since Josephus’ own character speaks
introduction of ethics to philosophy (Diogenes Laertius about the souls of the good going first to a heavenly
2.16), causation in human actions became a central place and then to “holy new bodies”—in the revolution,
issue for philosophers. Plato deals with the problem or succession, of ages (ἐκ περιτροπῆς αἰώνων): War
in a number of contexts (e.g., Phaedo 80d-81d; Resp. 3.375; Apion 2.218. He thus envisages an intervening
614b-621d; Tim. 41d, 42d, 91d-e). Although Aristotle period of the soul’s existence before its re-incarnation.
credits nature, necessity, and chance with much influ- Although this kind of “living again” (παλιγγενεσία,
ence in human affairs, he holds that the choice of virtue αναβίωσις) has both substantive and linguistic parallels
or vice lays “in ourselves” (Eth. nic. 3.3.3-5.2). Most to (especially) Platonic images of reincarnation, in which
important: according to Cicero, the Stoic Chrysippus souls may face an interval in Hades before living again
distinguished two kinds of causes: principal or anteced- (Meno 81b; Phaed. 70c, 71e-72a), Josephus’ emphases
ent (causae perfectae et principales) and “helping” or on the holiness and singularity of the new body, its nature
proximate (causae adiuvantes et proximae; Fat. 42). as reward [whereas for Greeks, reincarnation is generally
When one pushes a drum down a hill, for example, the viewed as a burden], and the specification that this will
antecedent cause of its rolling is its particular nature (its happen in the succession of ages (not as an ongoing pat-
tern) create affinities with current pictures of resurrection
rollability). The push given to begin the roll is a near or
(e.g., Paul in 1 Cor 15:35-51; cf. in detail Cavallin 1974;
“helping” cause—though in every single case such an
survey in Elledge 2006). Josephus’ ambiguous language
initiating cause will be found. So also humans have a
would no doubt make the Pharisees’ view of afterlife,
certain character or nature, but Fate intervenes in each
whatever that was historically, sound more familiar to
action by applying a certain prod to that character. Of
his audience (see Mason 1991: 156-70). Whether such
course, the relationship between determinism and free
language reflects his knowledge of the group or he is
will has, in various guises, remained one of the central
obfuscating matters because talk of “bodily resurrection”
problems of philosophy. Though Josephus will attempt
would make audiences uncomfortable (cf. Acts 17:31-33;
a more sophisticated expression of the Pharisees’ view
Celsus ap. Origen, C. Cels. 5.14; Augustine, Civ. 22.4-5)
in Ant. 18.13, it does not add much. From rabbinic lit- seems impossible to say.
erature, a parallel to Josephus’ statement is often drawn 1013
Greek τὰς δὲ τῶν φαύλων αἰδίῳ τιµωρίᾳ
from a saying attributed to R. Akiva in m. Avot 3.16: κολάζεσθαι. In the parallel at Ant. 18.14, rewards and
“All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given” (Danby punishments are both allotted “beneath the earth” (i.e.,
trans.). Yet the key phrase (‫ )צפוי הכל‬may simply mean in Hades), where the souls of the wicked face eternal
that all is observed (by God, by others); cf. Schechter imprisonment (εἱργµὸν ἀίδιον). The Pharisees’ belief
1961: 285. in eternal retribution is thus far indistinguishable from
1011
Greek ψυχὴν τε πᾶσαν µὲν ἄφθαρτον. Cf. Ant. that of the Essenes, who posit “unending retributions”
18.14 on the Pharisees’ view, “there is with souls a death- (τιµωριῶν ἀδιαλείπτων, 2.155) and “deathless retribu-
less power” (ἀθανατόν τε ἰσχύν); 18.18 on the Ess- tion” (ἀθάνατον τιµωρίαν, 2.157).
enes’ view, “they make souls deathless” (ἀθανατίζουσιν 1014
See the note at 1.119. The Sadducees (Le Moyne
δὲτὰς ψυχάς). Here too the Pharisees agree with the 1972; Saldarini 1988; Wassèn 1990; Grabbe 1992:
Essene position recently described (“souls endure for- 2.484-87; Sanders 1992; Stemberger 1995; Baumgarten
ever, deathless”) and indeed with standard philosophical 1997, passim) hardly appear in the NT. They are absent
134 book two

mitting and the contemplating of evil:1016 165 they claim that both the honorable and the

from Paul’s letters; Mark presents them as 2-dimensional ment) and those attributed to the Sadducees in the NT
characters “who say there is no resurrection” (Mark and Josephus.
12:18); John collapses them into an undifferentiated Although Josephus was a proud member of the
Judean leadership (they do not appear by name); Mat- priestly aristocracy so coldly portrayed by Acts, neither
thew couples them with the Pharisees to represent the of the incidents he reports of the Sadducees expresses
joint leadership of the old Israel who reject Jesus (Matt any admiration. In Ant. 13.288-296 he relates a story
3:7; 16:1-12). Only Luke-Acts offers a more nuanced about the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus’ rejection of the
portrait: in Acts 4:1 and 5:17 the high priest and Temple Pharisees in favor of the Sadducees, at the instigation
authorities are said to be Sadducees. This clarifies the of a Sadducee named Jonathan. Josephus indicates there
closing section of Luke (19:39), where the relatively that the Sadducees’ rejection of the Pharisees’ tradition
congenial Pharisees leave the story at Jesus’ entry into “of the fathers” caused much conflict between the two
Jerusalem. Near the end of Acts (23:8), the author makes groups (Ant. 13.297), and the Sadducees had the support
the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection an issue that Paul only of “the well fixed.” He repeats these points in Ant.
can use to divide the Jerusalem court, adding the unpar- 18.16-17: although the Sadducees include men of the
alleled statement that they also deny the existence of highest standing, they defer to the Pharisees because of
angels or spirits. the latter’s popular support (18.17). Although much of
Rabbinic literature contains many references to the the Sadducean outlook might seem suited to the aristo-
‫צדוקים‬, the etymology of which is uncertain. Scholars crat Josephus, their Epicurean-like denial of an afterlife
have usually taken the term to approximate “Sadducees” and rejection of fate in favor of unfettered free will, as
(Greek Σαδδουκαῖοι) and linked it with the biblically here, stand in sharp conflict with his views. His second
authorized high-priestly family of Zadok (1 Kgs 2:35; incident involving Sadducees is also related in a hostile
Ezek 40:46), which lost power under Antiochus IV. The tone. Before the arrival of the new governor Albinus,
connection is not certain because there is a linguistic the high priest Ananus arranges for the execution by
difficulty in the double δ of the Greek, and it is unclear stoning of Jesus’ brother James and others. Ananus is
why the non-Zadokite priesthood after Antiochus’ time a member of the Sadducees, who “when it comes to
would perpetuate that name. Rabbinic ‫ צדוקים‬generally judgments, are savage in contrast to all other Jews”
appear as allies of the mysterious Boethusians (a Greek (Ant 20.199). Although Josephus elsewhere praises the
name) and in dispute with the sages and/or the ‫פרושים‬ severity of the Jewish laws against wrongdoers (Apion
(Pharisees). The ‫ צדוקים‬have their own date for Pente- 2.276-278), he apparently considers the Sadducees cruel.
1015
cost (m. Hag. 2.4; Men. 10.3) and purity laws that differ Greek τὴν µὲν εἱµαρµένην παντάπασιν ἀναί-
from those of the majority (m. Yad. 4.6-7). Although they ροῦσιν. The repetition of the main verb (ἀναιρέω) in the
seek to find fault with the others’ ritual prescriptions (m. next sentence strengthens the picture of the Sadducees
Par. 3.3), they do not appear in early rabbinic literature as deniers of all these positive philosophical (theologi-
as wealthy aristocrats. They can be isolated from “Israel” cal) claims. At Ant. 13.172 the Sadducean position is
as much as the Samaritans (m. Nid. 4.2). Early rabbinic described in nearly identical terms (Σαδδ. δὲ τὴν µὲν
literature does preserve some hint that the priestly aris- εἱµαρµένην ἀναιροῦσιν). Possibly, Josephus intends
tocracy (though not identified as Sadducean) was com- irony, for in Stoic doctrine it is Fate that (creates and)
pelled to follow the prescriptions of “the elders” (not “does away with” everything in existence: ἕπεται τῷ
Pharisees); see m. Yoma 1.1-7. The Babylonian Talmud πάντα γίνεσθαι καθ’ εἱµαρµένην. . . ἀναιρετέον ἄρα τὸ
reports the explicit claim that Sadducean chief priests πάντα γίνεσθαι καθ εἱµαρµένην, ᾧ τοῦθ’ εἵπετο (Chry-
had to follow Pharisaic dictates (Yoma 19b). But this sippus, Frag. 1004.11). Here, paradoxically, the Saddu-
is very late and of doubtful use for reconstructing 1st- cees (presumptuously think that they) do away with Fate.
century conditions, half a millennium earlier. In his narrator’s voice, at least, Josephus is committed
Lawrence Schiffman (1994) has argued that corre- to the proposition that God, providence (πρόνοια), and/
spondences between positions attributed to the rabbinic or Fate (ἡ εἱµαρµένη) oversee human affairs. See e.g.,
‫ צדוקים‬and those advocated by 4QMMT from Qumran Ant. 1.14, 20; 10.277-81; 16.395-99.
1016
show that the people behind some DSS were proto-Sad- Greek τὸν θεὸν ἔξω τοῦ δρᾶν τι κακὸν ἢ ἐφορᾶν
ducees; both groups claimed loyalty to the priestly line τίθενται. The language (θεός, ἐφοράω, κακόν) is typi-
of Zadok. This view has not won wide acceptance yet cally Josephan: War 1.630-1; 5.413. In these passages,
because of the major disagreements between the views and programmatically in Apion 2.181 (note also Ant.
of the Scrolls’ authors (with strong emphasis on spiri- 1.20, though with other language), he speaks of God’s
tual powers, heavenly intervention, and coming judg- contemplating (ἐφορᾶν) everything (πάντα). Cf. Homer
book two 135

despicable reside in the choice of human beings,1017 and that it is according to the judgment
of each person to embrace either of these. The survival of the soul,1018 the punishments
and rewards in Hades1019—they do away with them.1020 166 And whereas Pharisees are
mutually affectionate1021 and cultivate concord1022 in relation to the community, Sadducees
have a rather harsh disposition even towards one another:1023 encounters with their peers1024
are as uncouth as those with outsiders.
Such is what I had to say concerning those among the Judeans who philosophize.1025
(9.1) 167 With the ethnarchy of Archelaus1026 having passed over1027 into a prov-
ince,1028 the remaining [brothers], Philip1029 and the Herod called Antipas,1030 contin-
ued administering their own tetrarchies. 1031 When Salome expired,1032 she bequeathed

(Od. 12.322), speaking of the Sun’s universal purview, was also a technical term for the qualified aristocracy
and Philo, Leg. 3.171; Quaest. gen. 1.fr. 69. among the Spartans especially (Xenophon, Anab. 4.6;
1017
Greek ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἐκλογῇ τὸ τε καλὸν καὶ τὸ Lac. 10.7; 13.1; cf. Herodotus 3.35 on the Persians).
κακὸν προκεῖσθαι. For the language of moral choice, Given the many links between the Spartans and Esse-
see the notes to “right” and “human beings” at 2.163. nes just portrayed (see Excursus), it is just possible that
1018
The closest parallel to Josephus’ language here Josephus’ audience would have picked up a further allu-
(ψυχῆς διαµονή) comes in Plutarch, Mor. 560d, f. sion here.
1019 1025
This phrase both clarifies what Josephus assumes This concluding statement reprises the opening
about the Pharisees’ views above (2.163), that the rewards line (2.119), which introduced three forms or bodies
and punishments are dispensed in Hades, and anticipates that philosophize (in both, φολοσοφέω in middle voice)
Ant. 18.14, which puts the Pharisees’ rewards and pun- among the Judeans, consolidating the overall symmetry
ishments “beneath the earth.” of the lengthy passage.
1020 1026
In the parallel (Ant. 18.16) Josephus puts the Sad- See 2.96-97 for the scope of Archelaus’ terri-
ducean view of afterlife in propositional rather than nega- tory.
1027
tive terms: “their doctrine dissolves the souls together This is the only occurrence of µεταπίπτω (“fall
with the bodies” (τὰς ψυχὰς ὁ λόγος συναφανίζει τοῖς over/down, pass over to, change to”) in War. In the
σώµασι). Antiquities it is normally used for a change of political
1021
Greek φιλάλληλοι recalls the same word in the or religious constitution or regime—for the worse (Ant.
opening sentence (2.119; note symmetry), where how- 6.83; 12.2, 320; 13.281; 15.365; 18.124). Cf. Tacitus’
ever the Essenes are said to outshine all other schools quando in formam provinciae cesserant (of a British cli-
in mutual affection; the Pharisees’ mutual affection is ent kingdom), Ann. 14.31.
1028
relative to the Sadducees’ harshness even toward one In 6 CE. Josephus resumes the narrative of 2.117-
another. At Ant. 18.14, Josephus explains that the Phari- 118, which he interrupted for the long digression on the
sees defer and give honor to those advanced in age, and philosophical schools. For the status of Judea as “prov-
do not rashly contradict them. ince,” see the relevant notes on the earlier passage, and
1022
Or “consensus, unanimity, oneness of mind, har- note again Tacitus’ impression (Hist. 5.9) that Judea
mony”; Greek ὁµόνοια is a significant contrapuntal lost its native rule and became a province only under
theme of War (1.460; 2.345, 467; 3.496; 4.369; 5.72, Claudius. Here Josephus takes advantage of a rhyme
278; esp. 6.216), where 13 of its 24 occurrences in Jose- not apparent in English: ἐθναρχίας (genitive, ethnarchy)
phus occur. It is the lost (but proper Judean) alternative becomes ἐπαρχίαν (accusative): a province.
1029
to the civil strife (στάσις) that wracked the nation and Augustus had given Philip Batanea, Trachonitis,
brought war with Rome. Cf. Apion 2.179, 283. Cultivat- Auranitis, and an area around Panias at 2.94-95; see also
ing concord, with ἀσκέω, recalls the opening sentence the note to “Philip” at 2.14.
1030
(2.119), where the Essenes cultivate seriousness. Augustus had given Antipas Perea and Galilee
1023
The disputatiousness of the Sadducees towards according to 2.94-95; see also the note to “Antipas” at
their own “teachers of wisdom” is alleged in the paral- 2.20.
1031
lel: Ant. 18.16. Elsewhere Josephus attributes to them a The rhyme, reinforcing Josephus’ ostensible con-
harshness, severity, or even savagery in their legal judg- cern with varieties of political constitution, continues
ments: Ant. 13.294; 20.200. (see note to “province” in this section) with τετραρχίας
1024
Given the many possibilities for designating fel- (accusative plural).
1032
low-members or associates of the same school, this Ant. 18.31 dates Salome’s death to the tenure of
phrase (πρὸς τοὺς ὁµοίους) is striking. Though it might Ambivulus as governor (9-12 CE); Kokkinos (1998: 192)
simply indicate “their kind, those like them,” οἱ ὅµοιοι proposes 10 CE.
136 book two

to Iulia,1033 the wife of the August One,1034 her own toparchy1035 as well as both Iam-
Philip founds neia1036 and the palm-groves in Phasaelis.1037 168 And when the Roman imperium1038
Caesarea, passed over to Tiberius the son of Iulia,1039 after the death of Augustus (who had been
Antipas founds
Tiberias. Ant.
18.32

1033
Introduced in 1.566, according to MSS PA, as appears here to be distinct from her toparchy, was oth-
“Livia, the wife of the Caesar [Augustus],” though the erwise itself considered a toparchic center encompassing
other MSS have “Iulia” there as here. It is difficult to also coastal Azotus (War 3.54-5; Pliny, Nat. 5.70; cf. A.
decide the reading there: “Livia” might be preferable as H. M. Jones 1937: 274-75, who notes that it remained
difficilior in light of Josephus’ more common usage (Ant. under the Roman governor’s administration regardless
16.139; 17.10, 141, 146, 190; 18.31, 33), but “Iulia” of ownership).
1036
could be the more difficult (so, preferable) reading if one See the note at 2.98.
1037
posited an effort at scribal correction to “Livia” for this Phasaelis is modern Khirbet Fasayil, N of Jericho
period of her life. This is the remarkable woman born in the Jordan valley (see Appendix A in BJP 1a). On its
Livia Drusilla (58 BCE-29 CE), who married Tiberius celebrated honey-dates, including the “Nicolaus” variety,
Claudius Nero, by whom she bore the later princeps see Pliny, Nat. 13.44-45. According to 2.98 (see notes
Tiberius; she divorced this man while pregnant in order there), Augustus had granted the territories mentioned
to marry the future Augustus, Octavian (39 BCE). Jose- here to Salome as part of his final disposition of Herod’s
phus identifies her as wife of Augustus here presumably former kingdom. Ant. 17.189 and 18.231 claim, however,
to distinguish her from Augustus’ notorious daughter by that they were granted by Herod’s will; Augustus added
Scribonia, who had the same name (see 2.25 above). as his own gift the royal palace at Ascalon. Perhaps the
Livia was perhaps the most famous and highly regarded “and” is more explicative or epexegetical than additional.
woman—and not merely a woman—known to Josephus’ It was common for client monarchs of Rome to bequeath
Roman audience. Her divine cult had been celebrated territories to their patrons; here we see the parallel prac-
even before her death outside of Rome (Barrett 2002: tice on a minor scale among client-royal women.
1038
207-14). Following her death, the Senate voted her See the note to this phrase at 1.3. Of its 11 occur-
divine honors, which were finally granted by Claudius in rences in War , 5 are in bk. 2.
1039
42 CE (Velleius 2.130.5; Tacitus, Ann. 5.2.2; Dio 58.2.1; Tiberius Claudius Nero (42 BCE-37 CE), named
Suetonius, Tib. 51.2). Aside from Tacitus, who was ready after his father (Livia-Iulia’s ex-husband), was adopted
to attribute all sorts of perfidy to high-standing Roman by his step-father Augustus in 4 CE and renamed
women, a wide range of evidence shows that Livia-Iulia Tiberius Claudius Caesar; he became Tiberius Caesar
Augusta was held in the highest regard long after her Augustus on his accession to the principate in 14 CE
death (Barrett 2002: 219, 222-25). (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 1.5). His elevation in Augustus’ final
At the story time here, Salome’s death in 10 CE, years was the conclusion of a long and complicated suc-
Livia was not yet known as Iulia (Augusta)—the name cession struggle, which had seen him fall from favor
bequeathed by Augustus to mark her adoption into his over against Augustus’ grandsons; their premature deaths
family (14 CE). That Josephus consistently gives her this and other political conditions had finally brought him
honorific and family name may confirm his expectation back into full favor as heir-designate (Seager 2005:
of a Roman audience (see Introduction). On Livia in 40-47). By 13 CE, he already held the essential powers
general, see Huntsman 1997; Barrett 2002; on her name, needed for supreme rule—unlimited imperium, tribuni-
Barrett 2002: 307-8; on her close relations with King cian power, and in general, powers equal to those of
Herod and his sister Salome (established perhaps during Augustus (Levick 1999b: 62-4, 75-6)—although pater
her visit to Judea with Augustus in 20 BCE), Barrett patriae and pontifex maximus would not follow for some
2002: 37, 196-97, 207. months. The nature and date of his “accession,” marked
1034
Here Josephus uses the familiar Greek translation by prolonged negotiations with the senate following
(Σεβαστός) of Augustus’ awe-inspiring title (Augustus). Augustus’ death on August 19 (Tacitus, Ann. 1.7, 13;
I would translate it “Augustus,” were it not that the next cf. Suetonius, Tib. 24.1; 67), have proven thorny issues
sentence gives the transliterated Latin title Αὐγούστος, for scholars to interpret (Levick 1999b: 68-81; Seager
which has a stronger claim to English “Augustus.” 2005: 48-57). The standard date is the Senate debate
1035
See the notes at 2.98, where Salome is granted on Sept 17, 14 CE, though Josephus must be counting
Jamnia, Azotus, Phasaelis, and the royal holdings of from about Oct. 13 when he gives the regnal period (Ant.
Ascalon, altogether producing 60 talents in revenue—but 18.224; cf. War 2.180 below). Tacitus, though recount-
all under the “toparchy” of Archelaus. The “toparchy” of ing the debate more fully than others, claims that Livia
Salome is difficult to identify, since Jamnia, though it delayed news of Augustus’ death so as to announce at
book two 137

leader1040 of the republic1041 for 57 years plus 6 months and 2 days),1042 both Herod1043
and Philip continued still in their tetrarchies. The latter founded* a city—Caesarea—at
Panias by the sources of the Jordan,1044 and in lower Gaulanitis,1045 Iulias,1046 where-

once both that event and her son Tiberius’ position as note), is dated by its coins to 3/2 BCE (cf. BJP 9: Appen-
“master of the state” (rerum potiri; Ann. 1.5; cf. Salome’s dix A)—long before the death of Augustus in 14 CE.
tactical delay, re: Herod’s death at 1.666, and Alexander Although conventional opinion locates Philip’s capital at
Janneus’ advice to Salome Alexandra at Ant. 13.401). the site of ancient Paneas/Banias, as a city built around
Although Josephus prescinds from direct comment on Herod’s temple to Augustus in front of the grove to Pan
Tiberius’ character in War, he will elaborate considerably (see the note at 2.95), excavations at nearby Omrit have
in Ant. 18-19 (on which see Wiseman 1991; Galimberti raised the question whether that site is more suited to the
2001; Mason 2003a). Tacitus’ scathing portrait of Tibe- role: cf. Overman, Olive, and Nelson 2003. For the state
rius in the Annals (1.4, 6-7, 10, etc.) shaped much of of the question (with arguments for rejecting the Omrit
the later tradition. hypothesis), see Bernett 2007: 126-46.
1040 1045
The Greek verb ἀφηγέοµαι is a neat approxima- I.e., the Golan Heights, occupying the area E and
tion of the idea conveyed by the Latin princeps (esse): N/NE of Lake Kinneret.
1046
Augustus was decidedly not a king in Roman terms, but Philip founded Iulias at or near the fishing village
the “leader” or “first man” of the republic. of Bethsaida, famous from the gospels, on the N shore
1041
Greek τῶν πραγµάτων. Although it literally means of Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee); see
“the events, matters, facts, affairs, circumstances, etc.,” BJP 9 n. 1632 and Appendix A to that volume; collected
τὰ πράγµατα is also the standard equivalent of Latin essays in Arav and Freund 1995. In Ant. 18.28 Jose-
respublica (e.g., Ant. 18.124; 19.173), “commonwealth, phus remarks that Philip named the city after Augustus’
republic,” sometimes spelled out as τὰ κοινὰ πράγµατα daughter Iulia (see 2.25 and notes). It seems improbable
(as at War 4.278): Polybius 4.62.4; 5.93.4; 6.54.3-4; however that Philip, who attained power in 4 BCE by
10.17.15; 28.6.5-6; 38.15.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.10.1; the grace of Augustus, either managed to build a city in
4.8.1, 26.1, 77.1; Augustus, RG 1.2. Josephus can easily honor of the notorious young Iulia (so Schürer-Vermes
use it of the ideally aristocratic Judean state: War 1.19, 2.172; Kokkinos 1998: 238) in the brief window between
273; 2.594; 4.492; Ant. 1.114. his accession—at which point she was already estranged
1042
So also Ant. 18.32. Augustus (see note to from Tiberius—and her banishment in 2 BCE, or that
“Romans” at 1.20) died on August 19, 14 CE. Given that he dedicated the city to Iulia after her banishment. So
he lived to nearly 76 (from Sept. 8, 63 BCE; cf. Sueto- Richardson 1996: 302 n. 36: “Why he should say later in
nius, Aug. 5, 100), Josephus has him “taking the leader- Ant. that Bethsaida was named after Augustus’ daughter
ship of the republic” (ἀφηγησαµένου τῶν πραγµάτων) is a mystery.”
from about age 18, long before his victory over Antony The context here, by contrast, implies a connection
at Actium (31 BCE) or his recognition as Augustus by with the Iulia who was Augustus’ wife and Tiberius’
the Senate (27 BCE). The calculation must, therefore, be mother, since all the other names honor an emperor or
from the death of Octavian’s adoptive father Iulius Cae- his wife; this is supported by the fact that other writers
sar on March 15, 44 BCE. Suetonius counts in a similar know this Iulias and/or the Perean one (below) as Livias:
way (Aug. 8.3): Augustus ruled the state (rem p. tenuit) Pliny, Nat. 13.44; Ptolemy, Geog. 5.16.9; Eusebius,
for 12 years as triumvir with Antony and Lepidus, then Onom. 112-13. There is now a growing consensus based
44 years by himself—roughly 56 years in total. By the on Philip’s “Year 34” (i.e., 30 CE) coins, which uniquely
Gregorian calendar, this period amounts to 43 years, 9 feature the word “founder,” that this was the year in which
months, 16 days before the Common Era and 13 years, 7 Philip founded Iulias, in honor of Livia, who had become
months, 19 days after it, for a total of 57 years, 5 months, “Iulia” in 14 CE (Kuhn and Arav 1991: 87-90; Kindler
4 days—about a month short of Josephus’ total. 1999a, b; Strickert 1995: 181-85; Meshorer 2001: 88-89;
1043
Antipas (see note to his name in preceding sec- Bernett 2007: 251). As for Josephus’ connection of the
tion). foundation with Augustus’ daughter: confusion is always
1044
Josephus often misleadingly combines building possible, though the simplest explanation of a statement
projects of varying dates in such lists. This Caesarea, that is both false and redolent of scandal, and (one may
often called Philippi (“of Philip”) on the strength of the posit) known by author and intended audience alike to be
Latin Vulgate rendering of Mark 8:27; Matt 16:13, to improbable, may be that it was meant as a joke. At least,
distinguish it from Herod’s more famous foundation of the Roman audience expected for Ant. 18-19, which vol-
the same name on the Mediterranean coast (cf. 2.16 and umes host a prolonged critique of Roman monarchy,
138 book two

Pilate as in Galilee1047 Herod [built] Tiberias1048 and, in Perea, the eponymous1049 Iulias.1050
introduces (9.2) 1691051 When he had been sent to Judea as procurator1052 by Tiberius,1053 Pilatus1054
standards into
Jerusalem. Ant.
18.55

tyranny, and succession (cf. Mason 2008b), might well Jones must be correct (1937: 275, 277) in surmising that
have laughed at the notion of a city incongruously built it was founded as Livias and renamed the “Iulias” from
to honor the unfortunate Iulia. 14 CE (see notes to 2.167).
1047
Josephus does not mention here (contrast Ant. Bernett (2007: 227-28) proposes that Antipas was
18.27) the refounding or fortification of Sepphoris playing a shrewd political game by this choice of name:
(destroyed by Varus at War 2.68, 4 BCE) as the “orna- he felt bound to honor his new neighbor (who received
ment of all Galilee”; he will not return to Sepphoris Salome’s former territories of Phasaelis and Archelais
again until 2.511, at the beginning of the revolt. in 9 CE or later); at the same time he wished to build a
1048
Antipas founded Tiberias in 18-19 CE on the bridge to the future with heir-apparent Tiberius, yet with-
western shore of Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret), in honor out making such an overt step as to name the city after
of the new princeps, who had come to power in 14. him (repeating his mistake in honoring Gaius Caesar, as
The parallel account (Ant. 18.36-39) is much fuller: it she argues, with Sepphoris-Autocratoris). Choosing to
describes the foundation of the city on the site of an honor Tiberius’ mother, wife of the current ruler, offered
old cemetery, which created much controversy. Tiberias many possible benefits with no risk.
1051
appears to have been a true polis, with the full range of Krieger (1995: 67-69), followed by Bond (1998:
Greek civic institutions (see A. H. M. Jones 1937: 277; 49-62), argues that following two Pilate episodes in
BJP 9: notes at § 31 and Appendix A in that volume). War support the narrative as follows. The first shows
Published archaeological remains thus far date from the the Judeans peacefully resisting Pilate, with a good
2nd cent. CE. Bernett (2007: 221-29) proposes that Anti- outcome; in the second, they respond more militantly
pas was motivated to found Tiberias in honor of the new with fatal consequences. This difference highlights the
princeps because Livias/Iulias in Perea was the only city moral: “either accept Roman rule peacefully and its gov-
in his territory that served this function; because of his ernors will show consideration or resort to violence and
disappointment with the traditional-Judean character of risk certain annihilation at the hands of Roman troops”
Sepphoris (as recent archaeology has suggested) after (Bond 1998: 56). Both scholars correctly note the differ-
its renewal, which limited the tetrarch’s scope of activ- ent number, configurations, and emphases of the Pilate
ity (and imperial honor); and because of his desire to episodes in Antiquities, and commendably argue that
recover decisively from his mis-step in renaming Sep- they must serve its different narrative context. But their
phoris “Autocratoris” in putative honor of Gaius Caesar, explanation is perhaps too mechanical. Neither response
who had once appeared as Augustus’ likely heir (d. 4 by the Judeans is violent: the first creates a “huge dis-
CE). Giving the city the emperor’s personal name was turbance” among them, with outraged masses stream-
a clear and remarkable honor. The new role of Tiberias ing into Jerusalem to protest; the second explicitly has
as Galilee’s main political and economic center—the them yelling at Pilate, it is true, but there seems to be
later loss of this status is lamented by Justus in Life no reason in the narrative to exclude such abuse from
37-39—must have involved a significant reconfiguration the first—not enough of a reason, at any rate, to treat
of regional relationships. the stories as models of two different kinds of behavior.
1049
Josephus uses the adjective only here and at Ant. In fact, Josephus appears to have made every effort to
1.257. assimilate one story to the other (see notes to the second
1050
That is, bearing the name of Augustus’ wife, who episode).
1052
is featured in this section as the new princeps Tiberius’ Greek ἐπίτροπος. See, however, the note to “proc-
mother: Antipas refounded and walled the transjordanian urator” at 2.117 and Bond 1998: 11-12: Pilate’s title
village of Betharampha (bibl. Beit-haram) in her honor should be “prefect” (ἔπαρχος; praefectus). This may be
(Ant. 18.27-28). The town had evidently been significant simple anachronism (paralleled by Tacitus, Ann. 15.44),
already in Herod’s time as the site of royal residences or it may be that in War Josephus deliberately diminishes
(see 2.59 above). Although Josephus has Antipas naming the stature of the Judean governors to that of functionar-
his foundation Iulias, here quite plausibly after Augustus’ ies, whom he portrays as incompetent or worse.
1053
death in 14 CE (with Livia’s adoption into the gens Iulia Although Josephus makes a smooth narrative
at that time), in Ant. 18.27 its foundation is dated soon transition from Tiberius’ accession to the new princeps’
after 6 CE, when it must have been called Livias. Since dispatch of Pilate to Judea, the parallel (Ant. 18.29-35,
in later centuries it would (again) be known as Livias 39-54) includes a considerable amount of information
(see notes to “Iulias” earlier in this section), A. H. M. between the governorship of Coponius, who came to
book two 139

introduced into* Hierosolyma1055—by night, concealed1056—the images of Caesar,1057 which

Judea in 6 CE and that of Pilate (see discussion below for the expulsion of Judeans and Egyptians from Rome in 19
dates). It mentions 3 intervening governors (Ambivulus, (so Tacitus, Ann. 2.85; Ant. 18.65-84)—would normally
9-12 CE; Annius Rufus, 12-15 CE; Valerius Gratus, 15-? suggest that Pilate arrived at roughly the same time. As
CE), and then digresses expansively on contemporary Schwartz observes (1992: 184), it seems more economi-
Parthian affairs. It is difficult to imagine that Josephus cal to explain the unsupported year counts for Gratus’
did not know the main lines of this history even as he and Pilate’s terms in office, even as textual corruptions,
wrote the War ; if so, he has compressed it all, making it than to overturn this complex of accidental narrative
seem to flow naturally so as to highlight Pilate’s allegedly evidence.
harsh regime soon after Judea came under direct Roman Schwartz’s arguments are independently supported by
rule (the earlier governors being mentioned cursorily K. Lönnquist (2000). His “archaeometallurgical” analy-
even in Antiquities). sis of Judean provincial coinage in the period 6-66 CE
Although the wording both here and at Ant. 18.55 shows that in coins dated from 17/18 CE to 31/32 the
suggests that the following incident came early in Pilate’s lead content dropped from about 11% to virtually nil
tenure in Judea (so Bond 1998: 79), perhaps even in the (2000: 465), then returned to its previous levels under
winter of 19-20 (see next note), this is dramatic narra- Claudius and Nero. Although lead (a common material
tive language, not necessarily transparent of historical in Roman aqueduct construction) has not yet been found
reality. in the Jerusalem aqueducts, its discovery in the contem-
1054
Pilatus’ unusual cognomen might mean “hairy, porary system at Panias leads Lönnquist to concluded
shaggy” or “armed with javelins (pila),” depending upon that it was also used at crucial points in the Jerusalem
whether the “i” is long or short (Kajanto 1982: 354). In system (though now lost through subsequent ravages)
Antiquities, where Josephus is generally concerned to and that Pilate’s removal of lead from his coins was for
give the Roman family names (nomina) of the governors, this purpose. Although he allows that Pilate’s predeces-
he identifies him as Pontius Pilatus (Ant. 18.35). This sor Valerius Gratus may have begun construction or
fuller name appears also in Luke-Acts (Luke 3:1; Acts planning (to account for the 17/18 CE), he thinks that
4:27; cf. 1 Tim. 2:11)—a work that shows remarkable the appearance of a new coin type—with upright palm,
representing good luck—matches a type otherwise used
similarities to Ant. 18-20 (Mason 2003c: 251-95)—and in
only for the arrival of new governors. And so he dates
3 letters of Ignatius (Magn. 11.1; Trall. 9.1; Smyrn. 1.2).
Pilate’s arrival to 17/18 (2000: 467-68).
That nomen is confirmed by the fragmentary inscription
If Schwartz and Lönnquist are correct (but cf. Bernett
from Caesarea (see note to “procurator” at 2.117), which
2007: 199 n. 111), Josephus’ quick movement here from
has “. . . NTIUS PILATUS.”
Tiberius’ accession 14 CE to the appointment of Pilate
Pilate’s dates in office are usually given as 26-36 CE,
in 18/19 CE would be more easily intelligible than it
on the strength of Ant. 18.35, which has his predecessor
is on the customary dating: his passing over the brief
Valerius Gratus in Judea for 11 years, and 18.89, which
term of Gratus would match his treatment of the other
gives Pilate 10 years in office, a calculation that accounts 2/3-year terms, of Coponius (barely mentioned at 2.117),
for Eusebius’ claim that Pilate began to govern in the Ambivulus, and Rufus, to focus understandably on the
12th year of Tiberius (= 26 CE; Hist. eccl. 1.9). D. R. governor who spent some 18/19 years in the region and
Schwartz (1992: 182-217), however, makes a compel- left a decisive mark. It would not, then, be the enor-
ling argument for the years ca. 19 to 37 as Pilate’s term. mity of Pilate’s measures alone that attracted Josephus’
His case includes these points: (a) Valerius Gratus is interest (note his apparent difficulty in characterizing
reported to have left Judea after deposing 4 high priests the aqueduct episode as a catastrophe), but much more
in rapid succession (after about a year each from 15 CE) Pilate’s impressively long term in office. Such a long
and then leaving Caiaphas in office; (b) the extremely term would match Tiberius’ known policy of leaving
brief account of Gratus’ tenure, which is only in Antiqui- provincial governors in office as long as possible (Ant.
ties (18.34-35), contrasts with an expansive treatment of 18.170; Tacitus, Ann. 1.80; Suetonius, Tib. 41), assum-
Pilate’s term in both works (Ant. 18.35-89); (c) the long ing only that there was some defect with Tiberius’ first
term of Caiaphas as high priest (18-36 CE) is most eas- choice of prefect, Gratus.
ily explained by a change of governor and therefore of 1055
Pilate apparently remains in Caesarea (cf. 2.173),
policy with respect to high priests; (d) most important, in spite of a verb suggesting that he himself led or
the surrounding events in the Antiquities narrative—the brought (along) the images into Jerusalem: εἰσκοµίζω (so
founding of Tiberias in about 19 CE (18.36-38), the rule Niese, M-B—a very common word) or παρεισκοµίζω
of Orodes as king of Armenia (16-18 CE; Ant. 18.52), (so Thackeray—though a word otherwise attested in
the death of Germanicus in 19 CE (Ant. 18.53-54), and literature only in Eusebius’ quotation of this passage
140 book two

[Hist. eccl. 2.6.4] and Cyril of Alexandria [Comm. Joh. For auxiliaries, such as those under Pilate’s command
2.659]). here, evidence is harder to come by, though reliefs show
1056
Greek νύκτωρ κεκαλυµµένας: or “at night, con- these units also making use of at least simple vexilla,
cealed [by darkness].” Some reliefs show images on spearhead-capped standards with vexilla beneath, or
military standards concealed by covers (Webster 1985: standards adorned with medallions enclosing an impe-
plate IXa). If Pilate both covered the imperial images and rial portrait (Webster 1985: plate XIVb) or a bull’s head.
brought them in at night, he was going to great lengths At least one infantry cohort had a standard resembling
to avoid public observation, though it remains unclear that of a legion, with spearhead at top, two wreath-discs,
whether his motive was to preclude confrontation (in and an eagle (Webster 1985: 147-49). Available evidence
hopes that the public would not see them) or to prepare does not suggest that auxiliary cohort standards normally
the ground for it (by creating a fait accompli). included imperial images.
1057
That is, of Tiberius (see 2.168). Eusebius (Dem. Uses of standards ranged from the mundane to the
ev. 8.122-123) identifies this incident with an episode sublime: reference-points for military drill, parade, and
related by Philo (Legat. 299-305) concerning Pilate’s combat; markers for digging camp; the means of signal-
dedication of gold-covered votive shields without images ing during battle; symbols of victory (cf. War 6.403);
into Herod’s former palace, which provoked similar out- and emblems for religious and ceremonial functions.
rage. Although the identification seems plausible at a They had a numinous quality: they were stored in a spe-
glance, given that Josephus fails to mention the shields cial shrine in the camp, fiercely protected in battle, and
and Philo the standards, and scholars have also occasion- anointed and decorated for religious occasions. As reli-
ally identified the two, the details of each episode and the gious objects they “received” the annual oaths of loyalty
timing in relation to Pilate’s career tell decisively against to the emperor and even soldiers’ sacrifices (Kraeling
confusing them (cf. Feldman 1984: 316). 1942: 265-70; Webster 1985: 133-34; cf. War 6.413).
1058
Roman military units had various kinds of stan- Josephus’ language (τὰς Καίσαρος εἰκωόνας, αἳ
dards (signa, σηµαίαι), which we cannot describe σηµαίαι καλοῦνται) is imprecise, for the images of
comprehensively given the paucity of surviving evi- Caesar were not themselves “standards” (= Lat. signa).
dence—from reliefs (e.g., Trajan’s column in Rome) The parallel at Ant. 18.55 (προτοµαὶ Καίσαρος, αἳ ταῖς
and occasional literary descriptions (see Webster 1985: σηµαίαις προσῆσαν— “busts [or engravings] of Caesar,
133-50 and plates IX-X; Feugère 2002: 47-52). A stan- which connected to the standards”) partly clarifies: Pilate
dard or signum comprised a thin wooden pole, roughly was moving a military unit from Caesarea into winter
the height of a man, to which was affixed a legionary quarters at Jerusalem; he allegedly had a mind to undo
symbol of some sort at the top, often with other shapes Judean legal tradition, whereas previous governors had
(e.g., discs and wreaths) along the shaft; handles pro- left these images outside Jerusalem, using only standards
jected part of the way up. Every legion had a standard without such decorations in deference to Judean law (cf.
capped by a silver and/or gold eagle, carried by a spe- 2.170). Josephus implies there that the introduction of
cially detailed soldier (aquilifer) wearing distinctive these standards was a gratuitous provocation.
animal-skin clothing (cf. War 3.123; 5.48; 6.68). The Pilate’s coins from 29-31 CE (thus, late in his ten-
eagle standard was the legion’s most prized possession, ure, following the death of his mother Livia), might be
its loss (as under Crassus in Parthia, 53 BCE) a massive read as confirming his intention to provoke, for they
humiliation (cf. War 6.225-226). The similarly dressed pair arguably “Jewish motifs” (Meshorer 2001: 171) on
signifer carried the particular legion’s particular emblem, one side—ears of grain, wreaths— with Roman sym-
such as a boar or bull, perhaps with zodiacal associa- bols on the other: cultically important objects such as
tions. The imaginifer carried a special standard with the a sacrificial ladle (simpulum) or an augur’s staff (lituus;
emperor’s portrait-bust (imago; Greek εἰκών—as Jose- Meshorer 1982: 2.180). Bernett (2007: 203-4) under-
phus here), sometimes accompanied by portraits of other stands the ears of grain as the Demeter symbol that often
imperial family members (Goldsworthy 2003: 84, 134; signified Julio-Claudian women, and so as the symbol-
see 143 on this episode; Keppie 1998: plate 14). Each ism of imperial family cult. That may be, though Agrippa
tactical unit within a legion, e.g. cohort and the century, I would use similar symbols extensively on his coins;
also had a standard, often capped by the figure of an they are also found on Judean clay lamps and jewelry
upright hand (representing the soldiers’ oath of loyalty) of the period (Meshorer 2001: 96-97). Bernett’s pro-
or spearhead. Finally, many standards were topped by posal (2007: 199-201) that Pilate intended to force the
flag-like vexilla (sg. vexillum), pieces of coloured cloth imperial cult on Judeans is difficult to square with the
about 20-22 in. square and hung from a cross-bar and evidence for this episode, with his function as Tiberius’
fringed along the edge. Among the Praetorian Guard in emissary, who should work with local élites to maintain
Rome, cohort signa were capped by imperial busts (Le peace, or with what we can reconstruct of both imperial
Bohec 1994: 58). cult and Roman administrative norms (e.g., Millar 1977;
book two 141

are called “standards.”1058 170 After daybreak this stirred up a huge disturbance1059 among
the Judeans. For those who were close to the sight1060 were shocked at their laws’ having
been trampled1061—for they think it fitting1062 to place no representation1063 in the city1064—

Price 1980, 2004a, b; Lendon 1997; Ando 2000; Meyer- exclusively by them, it seems (Polybius 1.53.4; 3.51.6,
Zwiffelhoffer 2002). 74.1; 10.14.4; Diodorus 11.61.3, 87.5; 15.40.1; 18.39.4;
Bond (1998) contends that Pilate did not wish to 32.1.1; 33.4.2; 37.2.13; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.10.1).
antagonize the Judeans but only to integrate them more Josephus hardly uses the simple adjective (Ant. 14.273),
fully into the empire. She largely follows Kraeling’s preferring to heighten the drama with a “greater” (War
(1942) explanation of the standards episode: Pilate’s 1.245; Ant. 15.223; 16.229) or “the greatest” (War 5.101;
introduction of image-bearing standards was necessary, Ant. 13.425) disturbance as here, a usage not attested
for the cohort in question was transferring to Jerusalem in earlier historians (cf. Aesop, Sent. 4; Epicurus, Frag.
either for a long stay or as a staging base for spring 72a; Demosthenes, Arist. 103).
maneuvers; either way, if its standards bore imperial Since the most basic duty of a governor was to main-
images, these would have necessarily remained with the tain order (see Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002) and enlist the
unit (Kraeling 1942: 265, 271-73; Bond 1998: 79). local élites as part of the governing project (Ando 2000),
On the cohorts in Judea, see the note to “Sebastenes” Josephus’ indictment of Pilate for provoking huge distur-
at 2.52. The one garrisoned in Jerusalem (5.244) was bances implies his basic failure. It is striking, however,
based in the Antonia fortress overlooking the temple, that Josephus can (or will) muster only two such epi-
with a presence also in Herod’s former palace in the W sodes from what may have been a 19-year term; note also
of the city (Kraeling 1942: 268-69). If a cohort named Tacitus’ description of this period in Judea (Hist. 5.9):
in honor of Augustus was among those under Pilate’s “Under Tiberius it was quiet (sub Tiberio quies).”
1060
control (so a cohors Augusta, cf. Acts 27:1), that might That is, those in Jerusalem (as distinct from rural
be the best candidate for a unit bearing imperial images. folk). Cf. 2.173 below, where Judeans are alarmed at
Their introduction, not only into Jerusalem but in imme- another sight, and 3.395, where the captive Josephus
diate proximity to the temple (i.e., into Antonia), might becomes a “sight” or spectacle (ὄψις as here; cf. θέα in
have seemed a particular threat to the imageless Judean 3.393), which has an emotional effect on both the inner-
cult on the same temple mount (Kraeling 1942: 274-80). narrative audience and his literary audience in Rome. On
On this view, Pilate’s later agreement to remove the stan- Josephus’ use of “sight” and spectacle to create vivid-
dards (2.174) involved a decision to replace this cohort. ness (ἐνάργεια), see Chapman 1998 and her essay in
In favor of this argument is Pilate’s effort to introduce Edmondson, Mason, and Rives 2005: 289-313.
1061
the standards “under cover and at night” (presumably, This colorful collocation, πατέω . . . τοὺς νόµους,
so as to avoid public offense). Against it is the plain turns up again at 4.258 in the high priest Jesus’ descrip-
sense of both War and Antiquities that Pilate returned the tion of the rebels; it seems to be a Josephan flourish (cf.
standards—with no mention of removing the cohort—to 1.544, πεπατῆσθαι τὸ δίκαιον), not attested in literature
Caesarea (2.174; cf. Ant. 18.59), and with apparent ease before him. The reference is to the 2nd commandment
(thus, no hint that a major logistical effort was imper- (Exod 20:4-6), which forbids the fashioning of a cut
iled), as well as the claim in Antiquities that it was pos- or hewn image (‫ )פסל‬in the form of anything in the
sible to use imageless standards (not cohorts without heavens, the earth, or the water. Deut 4:16 qualifies the
such standards) when entering the city (Ant. 18.56). It forbidden image as a male or female form; cf. Deut 4:23,
may be impossible to reconstruct the episode with any 25; 27:15; Judg 17-18; Ps 106:19. Yet from other pas-
probability because of the nature of Josephus’ evidence: sages (Isa 44:9-20; 48:5; Jer 10:14; Nah 1:14), it appears
he wishes to portray Judea’s equestrian governors in a that it is not the act of hewing or cutting that is forbid-
dim light, and he has massaged his evidence to (we do den, but the construction of images-for-worship, whether
not know what he started with) to fit this mold. cut or cast—in gold or some other metal (cf. b. Sanh.
1059
The phrase ἐγείρω + ταραχή is only here in Jose- 57a, 103b; Av. Zarah 2a; Bech. 57a; Temur. 28b). Given
phus, and found elsewhere in Nicolaus (Frag. 101.934 the existence of Herod’s prominent golden eagle above
[Müller]) and the 2nd-cent. CE astrologer Vettius Valens the Jerusalem sanctuary for many years, the presence of
(App. anth. 1.6.44). Josephus has a heavy narrative animal forms in Antipas’ Tiberian palace—attacked only
investment in forms of ταραχή (“disturbance”: 184 decades after his death (Life 65)—, and the abundance of
occurrences in his corpus; cf. 26 in Thucydides and 67 in images in later synagogue decoration (e.g., Goodenough
Polybius); see further 2.175. The modification of ταραχή 1988), it seems that the precise import of the biblical
by the simple adjective µεγάλη (“great disturbance[s]”) prohibition was not self-evident.
was a staple of Hellenistic historians—used almost Nevertheless, Philo’s Agrippa I declares it a well-
142 book two

and [in addition] to the indignation1065 of those in the city, the citizenry1066 from the
countryside streamed together1067 en masse.1068 171 They rushed to Pilatus in Caesarea1069
and kept begging him to take the standards out of Hierosolyma and to preserve their an-

known tradition, respected by all principes since Augus- this verb introduces a curious note of subjectivity into
tus, that Jerusalem—city and shrine of the imageless the interpretation of the 2nd commandment. Whether this
God—was to be kept free of such images (Legat. 290-98); was deliberate we cannot say, but it does seem to fit the
violation of that principle would be a “dishonoring of reality, in which rulers who were generally carefully to
ancient laws” (Legat. 301). Cf. Ant. 18.120-25, where avoid offending their people could in certain contexts use
soon after Pilate’s removal Vitellius plans to cross Judea images of living forms—and get away with it for long
with two legions, to confront the Nabateans; he yields, periods (Herod in War 1.650; Antipas in Life 64-65).
1063
however, to the Judean leaders’ request at Ptolemais that The word δείκηλον appears only here and
his army take another route (via the Jordan?), on the shortly afterward (2.195) in Josephus; before his time
ground that “it was not in keeping with their ancestral it is sparsely attested (e.g., Herodotus 2.171; Apollonius
[tradition] to stand by and watch images—of which there of Rhodes, Arg. 1.746; Lycophron, Alex. 1179, 1259; a
were many connected to the standards—being carried fragment of Euphorion).
1064
into their [territory]” (18.121). See the note to “trampled.” Neither the 2nd com-
Earlier (1.650) Josephus has remarked with respect to mandment nor biblical practice (nor Talmudic elabo-
Herod’s eagle that “it was unlawful for the temple to con- ration) limits the prohibition of images to the city of
tain either images or busts, or a work called after some Jerusalem, and that does not seem to be Josephus’ intent
living creature.” His later précis of the laws (Ant. 3.91) (cf. 2.195; Ant. 18.121). He appears to mean the princi-
seems headed in the same direction as the Talmud, claim- pal Judean city as distinct from the cohorts’ main base in
ing that the law prohibits images of any living being for (Greek-Syrian) Caesarea. Roman governors tended to see
worship (ὁ δὲ δεύτερος κελεύει µηδενὸς εἰκόνα ζῴου their roles in relation to the cities and their élites, not in
ποιήσαντας προσκυνεῖν). In an important story that has relation to a province as administrative territory, of equal
no parallel in War, King Herod faces potentially lethal importance throughout (see Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002:
opposition when he has Roman-style trophies (represent- 1-73). The sense appears to be “the city of Jerusalem—
ing Octavian’s conquests) brought in to his new theater famous capital of Judeans everywhere”; this would suit
in Jerusalem; Herod assuages the anger of most citizens the description of Jerusalem’s imageless tradition, hon-
by exposing the unfashioned wood beneath—because ored by all emperors until Gaius, in Philo’s presentation
observers had assumed that the sculpted representations of Agrippa I’s letter (Legat. 290-93, 298).
1065
concealed human forms beneath (Ant. 15.272-79). At See the note at 2.29. That Josephus uses the word
Apion 2.191 Josephus elaborates this law in philosophi- again (all 16 appearances in Josephus are in War ) in the
cal terms: God has no need of images. next Pilate story (2.175) enhances the literary symmetry
Josephus’ focus in War on images as matters of con- of these two stories, though they are quite different in
flict (1.649-59/2.5-13; here; Gaius’ statue at 2.185-203 substance.
1066
[esp. 195]) suggests that he is exploiting his audience’s See the note at 2.1.
1067
knowledge of this admirable Judean tradition (Tacitus, See the note to “ran together” at 2.43: this is the
Hist. 5.5; Juvenal 14.96; cf. Xenophanes, frags. 10, formulaic language of popular response to especially
19-20; Theophrastus ap. Porphyry, Abst. 2.26; Meg- Roman provocations. A third of the occurrences of
asthenes ap. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.15.72; συρρέω in Josephus are in War 2, of which this is the
Diodorus, 40.3.4; Strabo 16.2.35; Apion 1.179; Diogenes first (cf. 2.315, 490, 622): they contribute to the sense
Laertius 1.6; Momigliano 1971: 85-94; Feldman 1993: of rapidly increasing tension and outrage.
1068
201-4), to heighten the sense of grievance. Coming soon Or (ironically) “in close order.” See the notes
after the Essene passage, these episodes continue to por- to “close order” at 2.12, 63, and note the recurrence
tray the Judeans as a philosophical people, with worthy in 2.174 below. Josephus clusters occurrences of this
conceptions of the deity, enviable laws, and the courage word also at 1.80, 84 and 6.80, 82, 86. His distinction
to defend them to the death. here between city (πόλις) and countryside or open space
1062
Although Josephus often uses a narrative present around the city (χώρα) reflects ancient perspectives on
tense (marked by asterisk* if translated as past), here he the primacy of cities, the assumption being that Jerusa-
seems to be describing Judean views current also at his lem is the chief city of the central Judean countryside
time of writing. It is conceivable that the subject of the (cf. 4.253, 557; 5.373).
3rd-person ἀξιοῦσιν is “the laws” personified, but we 1069
See the note at 2.16: Roman governors took as
expect a human subject (capable of thought). In any case, their main base, and one of the chief sources of their
book two 143

cestral [customs].1070 But when Pilatus refused,1071 they fell down around his residence,1072
prone,1073 and held out1074 motionless for five days and nights alike.1075
(9.3) 172 On the next [day], Pilatus sat on a tribunal-platform1076 in the great stadium1077
and, after summoning the rabble as though truly intending to answer them, gave* the sol-

recruits to the auxiliary cohorts, Herod’s impressive describes often both literally and figuratively: e.g., War
coastal Greek-Syrian city; cf. the note to “residence” 1.73; 2.360, 366, 380; 6.123, 331; Ant. 2.11, 15; 3.91;
in this section. 4.137.
1070 1074
Greek τὰ πάτρια, interchangeable here (as gener- This verb of endurance, διακαρτερέω, is a favor-
ally in Josephus—Mason 1991: 96-106; Schröder 1996) ite of Josephus’ (15 occurrences, 6 in War ), as of Dido-
with the laws (οἱ νόµοι) mentioned in the preceding rus (19 times), whereas Herodotus and Xenophon have
sentence (2.170). it only twice each, Polybius once, and it does not appear
1071
Notice here the absence of the Jerusalem élite, in Thucydides. Endurance (καρτερία) is for him a para-
who will figure largely in later embassies to the respec- mount Judean virtue (see note at 2.138).
1075
tive governors: 2.237. Those élites are the governor’s Needless to say, these 5 continuous days of com-
natural conversation partners: they are, or should be, his plete motionlessness must reflect literary license.
1076
“friends” (amici, φίλοι), who work with him to manage Greek ἐπὶ βήµατος. Such a raised podium (cf.
their own people. The masses could only make much “platform” at 2.2) served as the seat of judgment for
cruder approach to the governor; his curt response is a magistrate (such as a governor) trying cases or hear-
not surprising. ing public appeals. It was not an expected or permanent
1072
The governor’s residence (praetorium) in Cae- structure within a stadium or hippodrome, which was
sarea, as in Jerusalem, was King Herod’s former palace. designed for sports competitions; the parallel (Ant. 18.57)
The probable (though still hypothetical) remains of this adds that this platform was specially constructed for this
structure were identified by E. Netzer in the 1970s and hearing—and served to conceal Pilate’s soldiers. Given
substantially excavated by a team from the University that βῆµα occurs only 13 times in War , it is striking that
of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s. The structure sits on 3 of those occurrences are concentrated in these brief
a promontory reef projecting about 100 m. into the sea, Pilate episodes (see 2.175, 176). Josephus worked delib-
immediately NW of the famous Roman-style theater; on erately to make these very different incidents resemble
the NE the palace projects inland, to abut the Herodian one another in form and language.
1077
hippodrome. All 3 constructions (palace, theater, and A stadium facility was U-shaped, roughly—hence
hippodrome), seem thus to have been conceived as a the name—1 stadion (180-200+ m.) in length; it was used
single interconnected complex. In its W (private) sec- chiefly for track and field competitions. In Caesarea no
tion on the promontory, the 2-story palace included a such stadium has yet been found. “Great” might imply,
large peristyle courtyard enclosing a pool larger than however, that this one was larger than usual. Archae-
half-Olympic size (see Appendix A to BJP 1a). Its E ologists led by Y. Porath in the 1990s unearthed a hip-
(public) part comprised a peristyle courtyard about 42 podrome (or circus) near the shoreline, supplementing
x 65 m. See the site map by A. Iamim and aerial pho- the previously known 2nd-cent. CE hippodrome to the E.
tographs in Raban and Holum 1996: xxii-xxv, and the The newly discovered facility abuts Herod’s promontory
essays by E. Netzer, K. L. Gleason, and B. Burrell in the palace, now the Roman governor’s praetorium (see note
same volume (pp. 193-247). The massing of the Judeans to “residence” at 2.171 above), and was evidently part
“around” Pilate’s residence (περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν), if this was of the integrated public-private complex (K. L. Glea-
the place in question, could therefore be achieved with son 1996). It was a U-shaped structure in the typical
a relatively small crowd positioned along the S and E style of a circus, about 315 m x 64 m (arena 301 x 50.5
of the residence. m), seating an estimated 7-13,000 in 12 rows of seats.
1073
The natural-seeming combination of καταπίπτω Such dimensions make it about 50% longer than regu-
(fall down) and πρηνής (prone) seems unattested in lit- lar stadium (hippodromes were built to accommodate
erature before Josephus, though he will use it again at horse races), though still only 25% the size of the circus
6.64, of the Roman soldier Sabinus who stumbles and maximus in Rome (600 m x 100 m), which seated some
is killed, and at Ant. 19.349, where the people prostrate 150,000 (Dodge 1999: 237; Bernett 2007: 117-21).
themselves in prayer for the recovery of King Agrippa Given the location of this hippodrome and its shape,
I (cf. Appian, Celt. 10.1, of a Celt’s obeisance before it seems the preferred candidate for Josephus’ “great
Valerius). The posture is strikingly and perhaps ironi- stadium”; cf. Porath 1995: 15-27; Humphrey 1996 (esp.
cally similar to that of prostration before a lord or ruler 122-24); D. Roller 1998: 117 and n. 79. It is probably
(προσκύνησις), often a Roman ruler, which Josephus also the “amphitheater” mentioned by Josephus among
144 book two

diers a signal,1078 according to a scheme,1079 to encircle the Judeans with weapons.1080 173
As the infantry column was positioned around three-deep,1081 the Judeans were speech-
less1082 at the unexpectedness1083 of the sight.1084 After saying that he would cut them to
pieces1085 if they would not accept Caesar’s images,1086 Pilatus nodded1087 to the soldiers
to bare1088 their swords.1089 174 The Judeans, just as if by an agreed signal,1090 fell down

1085
Herod’s important buildings (War 1.415; cf. the note to For κατακόπτω with forms of “encirclement”
“hippodrome” at 2.44 for interchangeable language), and (κυκλω-), see Thucydides 4.96.3; 7.29.5; Xenophon,
the scene of the quinquennial games (including musi- Anab. 1.8.24; Polybius 14.8.11; Diodorus 12.79.5;
cal and athletic contests, gladiatoral combat and animal 15.36.4; 22.13.4.
1086
hunting, as well as horse races) that he instituted at the This language of killing Judeans “if they would
city’s founding in ca. 13 or 11 BCE (with Bernett 2007: not accept” images of Caesar anticipates 2.185, the epi-
100, against the accepted date of 10/9 BCE), with sup- sode of Gaius’ statue.
1087
port from Augustus and Livia (Ant. 16.136-141). The Or simply “signaled”: Greek ἔνευεν is probably
more standard amphitheater in the NE of the city seems to be preferred to “he directed” (ἐκέλευσεν) in MS V,
to have been built no earlier than the mid-1st century because of multiple attestation (cf. the similar problem at
CE. 1.629, where there is better support for κελεύω), though
1078
Or “sign,” possibly “watchword” (σηµεῖον); cf. the latter would contribute even more to the re-use of
3.88. terminology in the second Pilate episode: see note to
1079
Greek ἐκ συντάγµατος. On the negative connota- “disturbance” at 2.175.
1088
tions, see the note at 2.107. The ἐκ-phrase here is not Greek γυµνοῦν τὰ ξίφη. Although the phrase is
attested in literature before Josephus or among his con- not attested before him, Josephus refers with menacing
temporaries, though he uses it again at 2.290—also of a drama to “baring [or bared] swords” several times (cf.
scheme against Judeans in Caesarea. 2.213, 619; Ant. 14.463), instead of the more prosaic
1080
All of this language (“tribunal, soldiers, signal, “drawing” (σπάω) of the sword, which he also uses: War
weapons, scheme”) serves to emphasize the ostensible 2.211, 471, 644; 4.640; 6.75, 361; Ant. 14.357; 19.105,
power concentrated in the governor’s hands—soon to be 122, 243, 263.
1089
undermined. Both the nod and the “baring” of swords (previ-
1081
On the problem of establishing the number of ous note) contribute to a well-crafted sense of drama
ranks in the legionary column see Goldsworthy 1996: that is less clear in the parallel, Ant. 18.58; cf. Krieger
176-83, esp. 180-81. By having ordinary provincials sud- 1994: 33. The War has many more references to swords
denly face a professional military column (φάλαγξ) in (ξίφη, 48 of 69) and sword-armed men (ξιφήρεις, 12 of
battle formation (cf. 5.131 for a 3-deep legionary col- 13) than Josephus’ other works, whereas it has only 1
umn) and following a precisely executed plan, Josephus occurrence of “dagger” (ξιφίδιον, 2.255), the conceal-
heightens the power differential and terror of the episode. able weapon of choice in situations other than all-out
At the same time, by reusing ἀθρόος of the Judeans at warfare (7 times in Antiquities-Life). Pilate’s auxiliaries
2.170, 174—a word often used in military contexts for may have been equipped much as legionary infantry
marching in close order (cf. 2.12 and note)—and notic- (Webster 1985: 151; Goldsworthy 2003: 136-37), with
ing their unified action as if by careful plan, Josephus a sword (gladius)—a straight, sharply pointed, double-
enhances the ironic “victory” of the Judean masses over edged blade of about 40-55 cm (16-22 in.) plus handle,
the professional soldiers. roughly 2 in. wide—suspended improbably high on the
1082
This colorful adjective (ἀχανής) occurs only here right side, with its handle top at chest level (Webster
in War ; cf. Ant. 7.242; 11.236; 17. 143. 1985: 128-29; Goldsworthy 2003: 68-70, 133). Or, given
1083
The neuter-singular substantive use of this adjec- a passage in Tacitus (Ann. 12.35; cf. Le Bohec 1994:
tive (τὸ ἀδόκητον) is Thucydidean (4.36.2; 5.10.7; 123) that distinguishes the legionary gladius from the
6.34.6, 8), otherwise not found before Josephus, who auxiliary spatha, it may be that Pilate’s soldiers carried
uses it again at 4.293. Cf. later Appian, Lib. 77; Bell. the latter (a blade some 50% longer than that of the gla-
civ. 2.8.53; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 4.14.4. The plural dius), though that weapon may have been needed only
form of this adjective (as modifier) is characteristically by auxiliary cavalry (Goldsworthy 2003: 138; cf. Feugère
Euripidean (Iph. Taur. 896; Alc. 1162; Med. 1418; Andr. 2002: 108).
1090
1287; Hel. 1691; Bacch. 1391). Greek σύνθηµα. Josephus will re-use the word in
1084
Greek τῆς ὄψεως. See the note to “sight” at 2.176 and at 2.326, in another important episode involv-
2.170. ing an egregious governor who provokes protest. An
book two 145

en masse,1091 bent their necks to the side,1092 and shouted that they were ready to do away
with themselves1093 rather than transgress the law.1094 Pilatus, who was overwhelmed1095 by
the purity of their superstition,1096 directed* [his men] immediately to carry the standards
out of Hierosolyma.1097

ironic inversion: Pilate ostensibly has all the resources century, Farmer 1956; Bowersock 1995; for an analy-
at his disposal, and takes the trouble to draw up a care- sis of active and passive resistance in the Empire, Plass
ful scheme (2.172). Without any such power or scheme, 1995. This story anticipates in many ways that of the
the Judeans react spontaneously as if by a plan—and Judean resistance to Gaius’ effort, through Petronius, to
manage to triumph. install his statue in the temple (2.192-198).
1091 1095
Or “in close order.” See the notes to this phrase Greek ὑπερθαυµάζω, expressing extreme wonder,
at 2.12, 170. Josephus’ re-use of ἀθρόος in such a short hardly appears before Josephus (Herodotus 3.3 in Ionic
space (see 2.170) is paralleled at 1.81, 84; 6.80, 82, 86. form; Chrysippus, Frag. sing. 9.2) and is only here in
Given those parallels and the context here, it seems that War; but cf. Ant. 8.170 (the Queen of Sheba’s amaze-
he intends further to develop the ironic contrast between ment at the grandeur of Solomon’s palace). Since Galen,
the Roman military column (phalanx in 2.173) and the Lucian (Macr. 24; Zeux. 3; Ver. hist. 1.34), Polyaenus
spontaneously united discipline of the Judeans. (8.8.1) and other 2nd-century authors (Achilles Tatius,
1092
Whereas here the Roman soldiers bare (γυµνόω) Leuc. Clit. 8.10.4) use the compound more heavily, we
their swords, and the Judeans incline (παρακλίνω—only see again Josephus’ employment, or even anticipation,
in War; also at 1.618; 6.224) their necks, in the paral- of newly fashionable language.
1096
lel (Ant. 18.59) the Judeans bare their throats and the Greek τὸ τῆς δεισιδαιµονίας ἄκρατον. The term
swords are not mentioned (cf. Odysseus’ “inclining the δεισιδαιµονία (fear or anxiety in relation the divine or
head” to dodge an ox hoof; Od. 20.301). We seem to spirit-world: Theophrastus, Char. 16.1) frequently has
have here a case of Josephus’ looking for ways to vary negative connotations (e.g., at War 1.113). In Plutarch’s
his diction. essay on the subject (Mor. 164e-171) it is a serious moral
1093
The active infinitive (ἀναιρεῖν σφᾶς) in MSS PA defect, worse even than atheism because the debilitating
is a forceful way of conveying the Judeans’ realization emotion of fear carries over into the next life. Plutarch
that their determined resistance amounts to suicide; it includes Judeans among the superstitious and alleges,
vividly reinforces War’s theme of their contempt for coincidentally, that their superstition led them to remain
death (see 2.151 and notes) and to a degree anticipates motionless in the face of imminent military threat, “as if
the suicide of Masada (e.g., 7.323-336, 378-379). This bound together in one net” (Mor. 169c). He also speaks
“more difficult” reading seems preferable to that of (concerning the Egyptians) of a belief that “knocks
MLVRC, eἰς ἀναίρεσιν (“[declared themselves ready] over the [weak and naïve] into pure superstition” (εἰς
for elimination”), which seems an accommodation to ἄκρατον ὑπερείπουσα τὴν δεισιδαµονία, Mor. 379e).
a more expected passive formulation, as in the parallel Tacitus liberally employs the Latin equivalent (supersti-
(Ant. 18.59: “they said that they would receive death tio) of barbarian nations, and the Judeans receive their
with pleasure”) and in the Latin: vociferantes universos fair share of such characterizations (Hist. 2.4; 5.8, 13;
se interfi ci magis velle. also Cicero, Flacc. 67; cf. Schäfer 1997: 186-90).
1094
Although the phrase παραβαίνω + νόµος, νόµιµα, Yet at 2.230 (the only other occurrence in War ), the
πάτρια is itself unremarkable, and typical of Greek ora- word describes the apparently virtuous Judean reaction
tory (Demosthenes has it more than 40 times), Josephus to a Roman soldier’s burning of the sacred law, unless it
uses it frequently enough (about 65 times; contrast Philo’s should be understood, as it were, in quotation marks there.
10) that we may consider it characteristic. In the parallel So it remains unclear—perhaps artfully so—whether the
(Ant. 18.59) he speaks of “violating the wisdom of the word should reflect Pilate’s negative judgment on this
laws,” in keeping with that work’s emphasis on the philo- foreign “supersitition” or whether the word itself should
sophical basis of the Judean constitution. Compare the take a less pejorative sense here. See similarly 2.198,
Essenes’ recently described determination to uphold the where Petronius marvels at the Judeans’ “unsurpassable
law even at the cost of torture or death (War 2.152-153) cult, religiosity” (θρησκεία)—with similar ambiguity
and Josephus’ comments in Apion 2.146, 294 about all as to tone.
1097
Judeans’ contempt for death, especially in the crucible of In Ant 18.59 Josephus claims that Pilate takes the
armed conflict. The theme of readiness for martyrdom on standards back to Caesarea. Zeitlin (1919-20: 259-60)
behalf of the ancestral laws no doubt owes much to the connects this with the memorial day indicated in Megillat
famous stories of the Maccabean tradition (2 Macc 7; 4 Ta‘anit, the Fasting Scroll, thought to have been largely
Macc 4-7; e.g., 5.27-35; 6.8-11, 25-27); cf. van Henten completed before 70 CE, which specifies days on which
1997 and, on general Maccabean influences on the first may not fast (IX: Kislev): “On Kislev 3 (November-
146 book two

Pilate uses (9.4) 175 After these [events] he set in motion a different kind of disturbance1098 by
temple funds for
aqueduct. Ant. exhausting1099 the sacred treasury1100—it is called the corbonas1101—on a water conduit;1102
18.60

December) the images were removed from the temple κορβανᾶς (MLVRC, Lat corban, and some citations,
court.” esp. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.6.6). The majority reading
1098
I.e., after the “huge disturbance” just described seems to reflect an effort to reconcile Josephus with the
(2.169), reinforcing the image of Judea’s equestrian gov- NT (e.g., Matt 27:6), with Josephus’ own spelling else-
ernors as unworthy and troublesome men, who have long where (Ant. 4.73; Apion 1.167 [κορβάν or κορβᾶν]),
tried the patience of the people—a charge levelled also or possibly with known pronunciation of Hebrew ‫קרבן‬.
by Tacitus: the administration of Judea being entrusted Suidas (s.v. Πιλᾶτος) keeps the -ω- spelling along with
to Roman knights and freedmen, the “patience of the Josephus’ definition here; so also the 4th cent. CE Epiph-
Judeans lasted until Gessius Florus” (Hist. 5.10). This is anius, Pan. 3.123. Curiously, the syllabic lexicon Parti-
typical Josephan language, both the use of ταραχή and tiones associated with the 2nd-cent. grammarian Aelius
cognates (as above) and the combination with κινέω (“set Herodian includes the -ω- spelling, as here, in its list
in motion”; War 4.131; Ant. 7.265) or κίνηµα (“commo- of κο-words and gives precisely the definition from this
tion”; War 3.309; Ant. 15.205). The combination also passage (“sacred treasury”)—apparently showing that
recalls two of Josephus’ models, Thucydides (5.25.1) and author’s familiarity with Josephus.
Polybius (1.69.6; 29.15.2). At Ant. 4.73 Josephus speaks, immediately following
“Disturbance” is only the first of several terms from his discussion of the nazirite vow, of those who desig-
the first Pilate story that recycled in the second, along with nate themselves “corban to/for God” (οἱ κορβᾶν αὐτοὺς
“indignation,” “rabble,” “tribunal-platform,” language of ὀνοµάσαντες τῷ θεῷ), a vow-state from which one can
surrounding, “concealed,” “sword,” “agreed signal,” and be redeemed; he translates the word there as δῶρον (later
“trampled” (possibly also “directed”). This similarity of a loan-word in rabbinic literature). See notes with bibli-
language, especially in view of the very different sort of ography in Feldman, BJP 3 ad loc. Apion 1.167 mentions
“incident” involved, creates the strong impression that κορβάν as a foreign (Judean) oath prohibited among
Josephus has assimilated the second story to the pattern the Tyrians: Josephus interprets it for Greek-speaking
of the first for literary reasons, including the demonstra- readers as δῶρον θεοῦ (see Barclay in BJP 10 ad loc.).
tion of Pilate’s incompetence and of Judean courage. Hebrew ‫ קרבן‬appears some 82 times in the Bible, mainly
1099
The parallel (Ant. 18.60) lacks this claim, say- in Leviticus and Numbers, meaning “sacrificial gift,
ing only that he had the aqueduct made, with the costs something consecrated,” often as cognate accusative of
paid by the sacred funds. Given that Josephus uses the the verb ‫“( קרב‬come near, offer,” e.g., Lev 1:2; 2:1, 4;
compound verb here (ἐξαναλίσκω) only 3 other times, 3:7, 14). Corban is discussed frequently in the Mishnah
and that it is not common elsewhere—most prominent in and Talmud (e.g., b. Shabb. 25a; Ned. 6a, 13a, 15b, 16a,
natural-scientific literature (Hippocrates, Sem. 51; Aris- 20a, 66a; Tem. 6b, 13a) in the same sense. It is also
totle, Probl. 929b; Gen. anim. 750a; Theophrastus, Ign. mentioned in a famously puzzling passage of the NT,
20; Caus. plant. 2.10.2, 12.6; 3.9.1; 5.11.2), occasional as vowed money improperly redirected from obligations
among philosophers and historians (Chrysippus, Frag. toward one’s parents (Mark 7:11), though Matt 27:6 uses
log. 572; Posidonius, Frag. 289.16 [Theiler]; Aristobu- κορβανᾶς much as Josephus here, for “temple treasury.”
lus [in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.15]; Diodorus 13.88.7; Rengstorf (Concordance s.v.) explains the difference of
15.93.3; 17.11.4, 48.3 etc.; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 5.26.5; spelling within Josephus on the assumption that the word
16.6.2; Philo, Spec. 3.10; Mos. 2.154; cf. Plutarch, Mor. in this passage reflects an Aramaic ‫קרבנא‬, the “treasury”
697b)—it is noteworthy that he will use it again in rela- behind Matt 27:6.
1102
tion to “all the sacred treasures” at 5.187. There, how- That is, an “aqueduct” (καταγωγὴ ὑδάτων); the
ever, he describes the Judeans’ admirable exhaustion of parallel at Ant. 18.60 varies negligibly with ὑδάτων
their time and their treasury funds to enhance the temple. ἐπαγωγή. On the challenges of, and possibilities for,
The sacred treasures were regularly replenished by sub- conducting water into a city, see Vitruvius 8.6 and Hodge
ventions from Judeans throughout the world; see note to 2002. In Josephus’ Rome, aqueducts were continually on
“treasury of God” at 2.50. people’s minds because of the capital’s enormous demand
1100
See the note to “treasury of God” at 2.50, also for water: the Flavian period saw several major renova-
2.331. tions (see next note), and shortly after came the famous
1101
This is a rare introduction of foreign terminol- treatise on the subject by Josephus’ contemporary and
ogy in the Atticizing War, perhaps intended to stress Nerva’s water commisioner, Sex. Iulius Frontinus (with
the narrator’s detailed local knowledge of his subject. concise analysis in Dodge 2000). But aqueducts had
The form given here (κορβωνᾶς) is taken from MS P more than utilitarian value: especially the enduring sec-
and corrections of A and L, against wider support for tions constructed high above ground on arched arcades
book two 147

it conducted [water] from 400 stadia away.1103 At this there was indignation1104 among

were symbols of power and conquest (Aicher 1995: 4-6). tribution from the treasury? (Even if the temple trea-
This circumstance may factor in Josephus’ account. sury was “exhausted,” that does not mean that it covered
Jerusalem was not favorably situated for a water sup- the entire cost.) Had some intended benefactors died
ply, and the city faced a number of droughts—in spite or become insolvent, forcing a turn to city funds? Was
of Pilate’s aqueduct (e.g., Jeremias 1969: 27, 120, 143; the imperial treasury involved (the state aerarium, the
A. Mazar 2002: 211). In ancient times the Gihon spring emperor’s personal estate, or the provincial fisci under
had supplied much of the city’s water, its utility famously his control?), by rebating tribute money or contributing
secured by Hezekiah’s underground tunnel (Mare 1987: technicians or surveyors, auxiliary soldiers, or materials?
99-107). The Hellenistic period (at least) saw the cre- Who designed and built the aqueduct?—for such systems
ation of large cisterns S of the temple and pools to the required professional planning, given the strict require-
N, serving Antonia and the New City (cf. War 5.467; ments of elevation, gradient, route, materials, pooling
Mare 1987: 161), which were extensively developed by and distribution mechanisms. Who gave Pilate access
King Herod (B. Mazar 1978), who also created cisterns to the temple funds? (There is no mention of a raid,
beneath the temple mount (reconstruction in Ritmeyer and this must have been done with the cooperation of
and Ritmeyer 2006: 79). By the time of Herod’s massive some city leaders.) Most unclear: designing and building
rebuilding program, the city’s water needs had become an aqueduct would presumably have taken at least two
enormous, with unprecedented amounts required for years (next note). At what point did this protest occur
sacrificial operations (Arist. 90), for Herod’s palace and (at the planning stage, after some point in the financial
royal facilities, and for a growing population (Hanson settlement, upon completion)? Was there only one such
and Oakman 1998: 145-46). protest? (If so, why?—given the long time required for
Financing a new aqueduct was a major undertaking. the project). Archaeology reveals that Jerusalem’s aque-
The cost of construction has been estimated at more than duct system was fairly complex (see the following note):
2 million HS (sesterces) per linear km (Leveau 2001: Which part(s) did Pilate build or rebuild? On these cru-
92-5), 1 million HS being the entire property qualifica- cial historical questions, Josephus is silent.
1103
tion of a Roman senator. Rome’s aqua marcia report- Although the stadion is not a precise measure (a
edly cost 180 million HS for its 91 km (Frontinus, Aq. distance of 600 feet, but the “foot” varied locally), and
1.7). Even though provincial aqueducts, being usually Josephus usually gives stadia measurements in multiples
less grand and less capacious, may have cost only half of 10, by comparing known distances with his stadia fig-
the Roman standard, they were necessarily expensive. ures it emerges that his stadion was roughly 200 meters:
The system that served Jerusalem (see next note) used a dividing by 5 yields rough km equivalents, and by 8,
variety of techniques, from simple cuts in existing rock miles (cf. BJP 9, note at Life 64). The distance indicated
formations to stone pipes, hewn tunnels, and support here is thus about 50 miles/80 km, though the paral-
structures made of small stones in high-quality concrete lel (Ant. 18.60) quietly halves it, to 200 stadia (roughly
(A. Mazar 2002: 213-26). 25 miles or 40 km). Quoting this passage, but probably
Inscriptions and literary evidence for other Roman- influenced by the parallel (more than by independent
era aqueducts indicate that financing typically required a knowledge), Eusebius offers a diplomatic “300 stadia”
combination of imperial grants (common for Rome and (37.5 miles or 60 km; Hist. eccl. 2.6.6). At any of these
its colonies), local community funds, and private dona- distances, this would have been an extremely costly
tions. This last category was notorious because, as a con- undertaking (see note to “conduit”), requiring at least 2,
sequence of death or default, an unfulfilled commitment perhaps 3 or 4 years (Lönnquist 2000: 473).
might fall on the city (Leveau 2001: 87-8). Pliny’s letters Since the mid-19th century scholars have excavated,
imply that the Roman governor had the crucial role in tracked, and measured Jerusalem’s aqueduct system. A.
arranging finances, by gathering private donations and Mazar (2002), on the basis of a fresh analysis, describes
community funds, before seeking the emperor’s approval 4 elements: an upper and lower aqueduct to Jerusalem
of the project and requesting any additional help, pos- from the 3 large spring-fed reservoirs at Solomon’s Pools
sibly through a rebate of tribute from provincial fiscus (about 3.5 km SW of Bethlehem), and two aqueducts
(e.g., Pliny, Ep. 10.90; Leveau 2001: 91; cf. the note to bringing water to Solomon’s Pools from more distant
“Caesar’s treasuries” at 2.111). springs. One of the latter, from ‘Ein el ‘Arrub, traverses
Such considerations bring home just how little Jose- a mere 10 km as the crow flies, but 39 km on the ground
phus explains about this aqueduct project, which must because of the difficult terrain, ending at the middle of
have been conceived as a public benefit. Was it Pilate’s Solomon’ Pools. The other feeder aqueduct, from ‘Ein
initiative, or that of the Jerusalem leadership? Had he ed Daraj in Wadi el Biyar to the uppermost of Solomon’s
or they arranged for private donations along with a con- Pools, requires only 4.7 km. From Solomon’s Pools to
148 book two

the rabble,1105 and when Pilatus was present at Hierosolyma they stood around1106 his
tribunal-platform1107 and kept yelling at [him].1108 176 But because he had foreseen their
disturbance,1109 he had mixed in amongst1110 the rabble soldiers in arms, but concealed1111

Jerusalem, the high-level aqueduct is 13 km in length, episode (2.170) helps to accommodate the two stories
built (according to inscriptions) by the Tenth Legion in to each other.
the 2nd cent. CE; the low-level system runs from the low- 1105
Given that the aqueduct was a public work for the
est of Solomon’s Pools to the temple mount. It runs for city’s benefit (Lönnquist 2000: 72-73), that governors
21.5 km, to cover an aerial distance of 11.6 km. expected to pay for such works from local resources,
On Pilate’s involvement with this aqueduct system, and that at least the Mishnah (with due allowance for
scholarly opinion has varied considerably: some argue dating problems) allows at least surplus temple funds to
that if the high-level aqueduct came from the Tenth be used for city needs (m. Sheqal. 2.5; 4.2), the precise
Legion in the 2nd century, the low-level one must have reason for the Judeans’ reported outrage is not obvious.
been Hasmonean or Herodian, so at most improved by It has been variously explained as Pilate’s misdirection
Pilate; others, following Josephus, insist that Pilate con- of money intended for sacrifices (Feldman, LCL Ant.
structed an aqueduct to Jerusalem, which must therefore 18.60 n. b), his interference with the local administration
be the lower one (A. Mazar 2002: 236-37). Mazar argues of the temple funds (Lémonon 1981: 167-68)—although
that the low-level aqueduct from Solomon’s Pools must he must have had the cooperation of local authorities in
date from the Hasmonean period, because it shares the gaining access to the funds (McGing 1991: 429)—, or
characteristics of other Hasmonean aqueducts, it must his draining of the treasury for this purpose, perhaps
have been needed long before Pilate’s time, and Josephus because of cost-overruns (Bond 1998: 86-87). The last
would surely have mentioned such a major project if it explanation best suits Josephus’ choice of verb (see note
had come from Herod. Pilate was therefore more likely to “exhausting” in this section) and it might explain the
responsible for the meandering extension from ‘Ein el vague timing of the protest: in spite of Josephus’ com-
‘Arrub to Solomon’s Pools. That extension, which would pression, a protest over the exhaustion of funds presum-
secure the aqueduct and greatly enlarge its capacity, hap- ably could not have occurred before the 2- to 3-year (?)
pens to match Josephus’ lower (corrected?) figure in the project was well underway, perhaps near completion. But
Antiquities parallel. It also makes sense as a project Josephus’ dramatic story-telling and lack of information
of Pilate’s tenure—a major enhancement to the exist- render historical conclusions hazardous.
1106
ing rudimentary system. Although Mazar’s theory runs The language of “surrounding” (here περιίστηµι)
against Josephus’ claim that Pilate constructed a con- picks up notices in the previous Pilate episode (2.171,
duit to Jerusalem, given the other liberties that Josephus 172).
1107
takes with the story—accommodating it to the standards See the note at 2.172 above: this is another word
episode, passing over crucial historical questions about re-used from the first story.
1108
who was involved and how the funding worked—this In the parallel (Ant. 18.60), although myriads (tens
presents no serious obstacle. of thousands) assemble before Pilate and yell at him
Although the addition increased the total length of (καταβοάω as here) to halt the project, only some (τινές)
the aqueduct (now ‘Arrub to Jerusalem) to about 65 km, “also abused the fellow, making use of insult in the way
which gets closer to the 80 km indicated here, Josephus that a mob loves to do.” In War, the verb καταβοάω
has dramatically increased the length of the structure is used exclusively for popular outrage at the behavior
built by Pilate. Josephus presents him as undertaking a of Roman officials in bk. 2 (2.225, 325, 339), with the
hubristic adventure—to rival Rome’s most magnificent exception of 3.410, where Josephus is the target.
1109
conduits, as the audience would realize—on the back See the note to this word in 2.175.
1110
of an unwilling populace. Rome’s great adqueducts had The doubly compound verb ἐγκαταµείγνυµι is
lengths of 91 km (aqua Marcia, 140 BCE, repaired by rare, attested only 11 times before Josephus (6 of those
Titus in 79), 63.7 km (anio vetus, 269 BCE), 69 km in the scientific-philosophical works of Hippocrates,
(aqua Claudia, 52 CE, repaired by Vespasian in 71 and Aristotle, and Theophrastus; also Philo, Legat. 169;
Titus in 81), and 87 km (anio novus, also Claudian). Quaest. exod. frag. 21), but he has it also at Ant. 15.360.
See LTUR 1.42-44, 63-65; Frontinus, Aq. 7, 13; and the His use of it here matches the form for “directed” in the
excellent overviews in Aicher (1995: esp. 32-45) and next sentence.
1111
Dodge 2000. This striking expression, “concealed (κεκαλυµµέ-
1104
See the notes at 2.29, 42, 170. Josephus’ re-use νους) in civilian clothes,” evokes Pilate’s concealment of
of this word and several others from the former Pilate the standards in the first episode, which uses the same
book two 149

in civilian clothes.1112 Having prohibited them from using the sword,1113 but having di-
rected1114 them instead to beat with sticks1115 those who had begun screaming,1116 he gave*
the agreed signal1117 from the tribunal-platform.1118 177 Many Judeans were lost from be-
ing hit by the blows, but many others from having been trampled under1119 by their very

perfect-participial form of the same verb. as soon as their identities were revealed. Historically,
1112
The phrase for “civilian [or ordinary, private] Pilate must have expected only a few troublemakers. But
clothes” (ἐσθῆσιν ἰδιωτικαῖς) is typically Josephan: the problem, again, is finding a firm place to stand for
also War 1.387; Ant. 5.228. A similar expression is found historical reconstruction, which cannot be a process of
in Diodorus (20.34.3). simply combining elements from literary accounts, or of
1113
Does Josephus really have special information reasoning historically from narrative details (which may
about the secret instructions Pilate gave to his troops? have no substance behind them).
This notice seems most easily explained on literary Atany rate, the parallel version (Ant. 18.61-62) is not
grounds: Josephus wants to play this second Pilate epi- readily compatible. There (a) Pilate has the plain-clothes-
sode against the first, in which the soldiers deliberately men quietly surround the Judeans, then orders the latter
bared their swords in a threatening gesture (2.173). to withdraw, leaving his men free to beat the recalcitrant,
1114
Before Josephus ἐγκελευ- forms are rare, mainly whereas War has the soldiers interspersed. (b) In Antiqui-
in Xenophon (Anab. 1.3.13; Cyr. 5.5.39; Hipp. 2.5; Cyn. ties the soldiers hit the Judeans much more vigorously
6.20, 22, 25; 9.7; 10.8; cf. Dionysus, Ant. rom. 3.20.3; than Pilate had intended, which explains the high death
4.12.1; Strabo 13.1.35). Later, they appear quite often in toll, though War has quite a different explanation. The
Plutarch and Arrian, for example. The 3 cognate forms War episode follows its own internal logic: the governor
ἐγκέλευστος (2.6), ἐγκέλευσµα (2.549; Ant. 19.110) and was determined not to back down, as in the standards
ἐγκελεύω (here) appear, curiously, only in War 2, with episode, and so came up with a better tactic (even if
the exception of Ant. 19.110. interspersing lightly armed troops in a vast mob does not
1115
Given that “sticks” or “pieces of wood” (ξύλα) make the best sense historically. Why not use concealed
were routinely carried by travelling civilians (2.125; daggers as the clever sicarii will [2.254-55]?). We seem
Mark 6:8), the point may be that the soldiers should not to lack a sufficient basis for either choosing between the
seem out of the ordinary. If the Judeans had been car- stories or reconstructing a better alternative.
1116
rying staffs, they had presumably put them aside before The colorful verb κράζω here (used classically of
assembling near the governor, so as not to seem a violent the croaks of frogs and ravens)—“cackling” would be a
mob. The parallel claims that the soldiers concealed their useful rendering if it did not also suggest laughter—is
sticks under their cloaks (Ant. 18.61). The scene antici- an alternative to καταβοάω (“yelling at” in 2.175). It is
pates another, more consequential, confrontation before a favorite in War , which hosts 12 of its 15 occurrences
Florus at 2.326. in Josephus. Several times it has “insults” (λοιδορίαι)
Pilate’s order to use sticks rather than swords has as object (2.295; 5.459; 6.108). Its later use in bk. 2,
been variously interpreted, generally on the assumption in scenes in which powerfully disaffected crowds abuse
that Josephus’ stories represent reality, and so discussion Roman governors (e.g., 2.280, 295), helps to unite these
is of Pilate’s actual motives. McGing (1991: 429-30) episodes and to steadily build tension.
1117
proposes that the governor had learned from the earlier Josephus re-uses the word (σύνθηµα) from 2.174
episode at Caesarea: not happy with the alternatives of in the first Pilate episode. This cannot be random, given
either mass slaughter or backing down after a show of that the word appears only 6 times in War , and that Jose-
force, he came up with this middle solution for enforcing phus re-uses so many words from the first episode; he
discipline without extensive injury. That same analysis will use it again in a similar story of a later procurator’s
works at the narrative level, however: Josephus’ Pilate fateful excesses (Gessius Florus: 2.326).
1118
grows as a character and learns from his tactical blunder See the note at 2.172, and note again the extensive
in the first round, an impression is aided by Josephus’ re-use of vacabulary from the first Pilate episode.
1119
artful assimilation of the second account to the first. But This verb (καταπατέω) reprises the simpler form
if that is part of the narrative, how can we reach histori- πατέω in 2.170: the consequence of Pilate’s trampling
cal conclusions? Bond (1998: 88-9) argues that Pilate’s upon the laws is that Judeans are literally trampled now.
approach here supports Antiquities’ later claim that only The compound form appears 6 times in War , only once
some of the vast crowd were serious troublemakers: were elsewhere in Josephus; of the shorter form’s appearances
the entire crowd perceived as a threat, as War suggests, 9 are in War, 3 elsewhere. Therefore, the juxtaposition
it would have been a foolish tactic to send plain-clothed here seems not to be random.
soldiers into their midst, where they would be vulnerable
150 book two

own1120 [people] in the escape.1121 Given the calamity1122 of those who had been taken, the
beaten down rabble became silent.1123
Agrippa in (9.5) 178 Meanwhile,1124 an accuser1125 of Herod the Tetrarch1126 came* to Tiberius:1127
Rome. Ant.
18.143

1120
This emphasis, missing from the Antiquities paral- In War ’s context, however, where Herod’s sons have
lel, might be interpreted either as excusing the Romans been in a state of constant rivalry and accusation (2.14-38;
or as taking away credit for their military actions. Given forms of the word appear at 2.15, 23, 26, 33, 35), this
both the immediate context (Pilate’s initiation of outrages notice of another accusation from the son of a long-dead
and earlier capitulation in the face of Judean resolve) and brother fits the story’s tone. It anticipates Agrippa’s later
the larger one (emphasizing Judean virtues), the latter accusation of Antipas before Gaius (2.183), which comes
seems preferable. only after Antipas has made a bid for royal status equal
1121
This result anticipates a similar but more fateful to Agrippa’s—possibly jeopardizing the latter’s kingdom
episode under Gessius Florus (2.326). (2.182-183; see notes there). That accusation story is
1122
Greek συµφορά is a key term in all Josephus’ fully developed in Ant. 18.240-52, where in response
works and it supports the tragic mood of War , in which to Antipas’ bid for royal status Agrippa sends a report
it appears 90 times. See the notes at 1.9; 2.186. to Gaius accusing him of conspiracy with the Parthi-
1123
At this point the Antiquities parallel includes a ans against the current princeps, with a notice that he
large number of episodes not found in the War , begin- had earlier conspired with (L. Aelius) Seianus against
ning with the death of Jesus of Nazareth (18.63-64), Tiberius. That notice is a possible source of the accu-
then “another horror” under Pilate (18.65) and affairs in sation mentioned in this War passage, though Seianus
Rome ca. 19 CE. In War Josephus has moved from the has died (Oct. 18, 31 CE) some years before the story
beginning of Pilate’s governorship to a somewhat later time (cf. D. R. Schwartz 1990: 52). At any rate, none
period (allowing for the construction of an aqueduct), of that information is given in the War , where it might
and now to events just before the death of Tiberius in have been inconvenient to raise the prospect of earlier
37 CE. Herodian conspiracy against emperors, and Josephus
1124
The following paragraph greatly compresses, and gives the impression here that Agrippa’s intended accusa-
differs in significant ways from, Ant. 18.126-236. That tion before Tiberius was only a continuation of Herodian
narrative has a young Agrippa, who has grown up in succession-squabbling.
1126
Rome attached to the highest social echelon, wasted his See the notes to “Antipas” at 2.20 and 94 (also
wealth, and accumulated massive debts, returning in Kokkinos 1998: 228-35, 266-69), where he has been
shame to Judea and, after failing to make a successful made tetrarch over Galilee and Perea by Augustus in
new start there, borrowing yet more money to return to the final settlement of Herod’s will. His last, disgrace-
Rome. ful appearance in the narrative follows in the next para-
1125
This way of reintroducing the future King Agrippa graph.
1127
I (who has been briefly mentioned in 1.552) is surpris- See the note to “son of Iulia” at 2.168 for the
ing, given that he next appears as a respected figure in beginning of Tiberius’ reign, which in this narrative is
Rome who serves as intermediary in the accession of mainly covered by the actions of his prefect in Judea:
Claudius (2.206-213), then as king of Judea (2.214-218); Pontius Pilatus. The following compressed account
and especially given that he was the father of Josephus’ gives the impression that Tiberius is in Rome at this
important patron, Agrippa II, who will be a leading voice time. Although the parallel at Ant. 18.126 gives the same
of moderation in the coming narrative (2.223, 252, 309, initial impression (Agrippa “had gone to Rome a year
335-407) and who is still flourishing as Josephus writes before the death of Tiberius, to gain some advantage at
War . court”), the fuller narrative there explains correctly that
The much fuller account in Ant. 18 has no counter- Tiberius had been living on Capri since 26/27 CE. Capri
part to this charge of accusing Antipas, and seemingly (Capraea) was a temperate island acquired by Augustus
excludes it by giving an entirely different reason both for off the S end of the Bay of Naples, SW of Mt. Vesu-
Agrippa’s approach to Tiberius (to gain influence at court: vius and Pompeii, some 128 miles (just over 200 km)
18.126) and for Tiberius’ dismissal of Agrippa (disturb- from Rome as the crow flies, though rather longer by
ing news of his debts, 18.161-63). Finally, according to available routes. Tiberius chose one of perhaps a dozen
Ant. 18.147-50 Antipas had taken pity on his suicidal Augustan residences on the island, the Villa Iovis at the
and penniless royal relative by giving him a position rocky E end of the island, for his home. Tacitus remarks
in Tiberias as commisioner of markets (ἀγορανόµος), that Capri’s difficulty of access was its chief commen-
though the reported taunts of the tetrarch (18.150) might dation to a lewd and anti-social princeps (Ann. 4.67),
certainly have soured their relationship. and Suetonius makes Tiberius’ retirement there a cover
book two 151

Agrippa1128 the son of Aristobulus (whom Herod his father had killed).1129 When he [Tibe-
rius] did not accept the accusation,1130 remaining at Rome1131 [Agrippa] kept courting
other eminent persons1132 and especially the son of Germanicus,1133 Gaius,1134 who was

for sexual depravity (Tib. 43-44). These charges, which trious, the élite, etc.” (τοὺς ἄλλους τῶν γνωρίµων). In
were perhaps inevitable when a princeps withdrew so the Judean context Josephus uses the plural form fre-
radically from Roman society, do not seem to arise from quently for the powerful men (οἱ δυνατοί), the most
any accurate knowledge (cf. Shotter 1992: 59-65). wealthy; his own father he describes as the most eminent
Although Agrippa was heading to Rome from Judea man (γνωριµώτατος) of Judea’s greatest city (Life 7).
according to Ant. 18.126, he disembarked (as was com- The Greek is also a close equivalent of Latin nobiles,
mon) at Puteoli on the N end of the Bay of Naples and which in the Roman context refers primarily to those
wrote from there requesting permission to visit the prin- whose families have held a “curule” magistracy (con-
ceps on Capri. But the visit was forestalled by Tibe- sul, praetor, curule aedile) and were therefore entitled
rius’ simultaneous receipt of news about Agrippa’s debts to display ancestor masks (imagines). Here it is unclear
to the imperial treasury (18.164). Only when this was whether the reference is to Rome’s most élite families in
resolved did Tiberius receive the young man, at which general (thus plausible sponsors for Agrippa), or more
point he tried to facilitate a friendship with his grandson narrowly, given the adjective “other,” to members of the
Tiberius Gemellus (18.165). Julio-Claudian dynasty other than the princeps himself.
1128
Marcus Iulius Agrippa (11 BCE – 44 CE), son of The plural might be nothing more than a vague allusion
Herod’s son Aristobulus and Berenice (1.552), was named to Tiberius Gemellus, the emperor’s grandson, whose
after Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Augustus’ colleague companionship was reportedly urged upon Agrippa (Ant.
and son-in-law, who had died in the year before this 18.166, 188) during the latter’s temporary reconciliation
Agrippa’s birth. He was raised in Rome and so became with Tiberius.
1133
friends with Tiberius’ son Drusus (Ant. 18.143-46). For Nero Claudius Drusus [Germanicus] (16/15 BCE–
his surprisingly exiguous role in War, given that he was Oct. 10, 19 CE) had become a legend in Rome by his
the only Judean king after Herod the Great, which is military exploits (especially the recovery in 16 CE of the
limited mainly to activity in Rome on behalf of Claudius legionary standards lost by Varus in 9 CE) and his early
(2.206-13), see the note to “accuser” in this section. On death in mysterious circumstances. Born to Nero Clau-
Agrippa I in general, see Schürer-Vermes 1.442-54; D. dius Drusus (Tiberius’ brother) and Antonia (daughter of
R. Schwartz 1990; Kokkinos 1998: 271-304. Marc Antony and Octavia), he was adopted by his uncle
1129
One of Herod’s sons by Mariamme I, Agrippa’s Tiberius in 4 CE and renamed Germanicus Iulius Caesar
father Aristobulus was executed with his brother Alexan- shortly before his uncle’s adoption by Augustus, which
der in 8 or 7 BCE at Sebaste/Samaria for his alleged part placed both men in the line of succession. His prestige
in a conspiracy against the king (1.435, 452, 550-51). In in the popular mind remained formidable, and in Ant.
War 2 Josephus regularly reminds readers, when men- 18.166 Josephus will cite precisely this (and the atten-
tioning these brothers, that Herod had eliminated them dant honor in which Gaius was held) as the reason for
(cf. 2.101, 114 [see note to “disposed of ”], 222). This is Agrippa’s attention to Gaius in spite of Tiberius’ wishes
not likely for the purpose of identification alone, since (see further 18.206-211). Gaius was one of 9 children by
he achieves that by calling them sons of Herod. His Agrippina (“the Elder”); others included Drusus Iulius
repeated reference to their father’s murders reinforces Caesar and Agrippina the Younger.
1134
the problem of monarchical succession struggles, which Gaius “Caligula,” soon to be emperor; see the note
has hung over the entire work since at least the death of to “Caesar” at 2.181 below. According to Ant. 18.188 (cf.
the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (1.70-71). 166-167), this attention to Gaius was an insult to Tibe-
1130
See notes to “accuser” and “Tiberius” in this sec- rius, who had rather wanted Agrippa to give his attention
tion: the Antiquities parallel has Agrippa at first denied to his own grandson (Tiberius Gemellus). Even without
access to the princeps on account of massive debts to that information, given the odium surrounding Gaius’
the treasury, then welcomed when his debt was covered name in Rome at Josephus’ time of writing, this attentive-
by Gaius’ grandmother Antonia (18.184). ness to the future tyrant can only appear as a colossally
1131
See the note to “Tiberius” in this section: the misguided gambit on the part of Agrippa. The implicit
implication that Agrippa has met Tiberius in Rome con- shamefulness in the parallel account (Ant. 18.126-236)
flicts with the accounts in Tacitus and Suetonius, sup- has prompted scholarly hypotheses that Josephus could
ported by the Antiquities parallel, that Tiberius lived on not have written that later narrative while Agrippa lived,
the island of Capri for the last decade of his life. or at least while the two were on good terms (already
1132
Or “other nobles; others of the famous, the illus- Luther 1910: 55). However that may be, already here in
152 book two

still a private citizen.1135 179 In fact, once while he [Agrippa] was banqueting1136 him, and
showing him consideration about other things in various ways,1137 he finally extended his
hands upward and openly prayed to see him [Gaius] soon the master of everything, 1138
Tiberius having died.1139 180 One of his [Agrippa’s] domestics1140 passed this along* to
Tiberius;1141 the latter became indignant,1142 confined* Agrippa, and held him in a jail1143—

War Agrippa appears with inglorious associations: oddly him (correctly) of stealing, at which point he decides to
mentioned first as “an accuser of Herod the tetrarch” accuse Agrippa of treason (maiestas) by reporting the
(apparently with no clear case) and an early fl atterer conversation to the prefect of the city (hence, perhaps,
of the now despised princeps Gaius Caligula. Unlike the verb διαγγέλλω here, which suggests a report via a
Ant. 18, where that friendship at least helps to explain third party). Strangely, however, given his reputation oth-
Agrippa’s ability to intercede with Gaius in the statue erwise, during his final years, for eagerness to prosecute
affair (18.289-301—absent from War), there seems no maiestas (Tacitus, Ann. 6.38), Tiberius is uninterested
constructive reason to mention Agrippa’s friendship with in the driver’s news—Josephus blames his inveterate
Gaius here. procrastination; D. R. Schwartz (1990: 54) thinks that
1135
Shotter (1992: 68) notes that Agrippa’s friend- Tiberius may already have identified Agrippa as future
ship was the only real service mediated by Tiberius for king and so did not wish to prosecute him—and locks
Gaius’ apprenticeship as princeps. Less charitably, Cas- Eutychus away indefinitely on Capri. Only somewhat
sius Dio reports (59.24.1) that the Roman people would later, at the instigation of Agrippa through the offices
later be distressed about the prospects of Gaius’ reign of Gaius and especially his grandmother Antonia, does
because (then) King Agrippa and King Antiochus were Tiberius reluctantly hear the charge: while briefly visit-
his “tyrant-trainers” (τυραννοδιδάσκαλοι). ing Tusculum near Rome, he has the prisoner brought to
1136
The story is quite different in Ant. 18.168-169, him. NB: Suetonius (Tib. 72) insists that Tiberius left his
179-194: Agrippa and Gaius are in a riding carriage, retirement in Capri only twice, neither time coming into
alone except for their driver (see the note to “domes- Rome proper, though once reaching the 7th milestone of
tics” in this section), and that is why Agrippa feels free the Via Appia, which would apparently allow for a trip
to utter such a prayer—in secret, except that the driver to Tusculum (about 12 miles SE of Rome).
1142
overhears. The story here emphasizes Agrippa’s undigni- This verb helps to link this episode with the two
fied obsequiousness toward Gaius. previous ones concerning Pilate, in each of which “indig-
1137
The elaboration of this point in such a succinct nation” occurs (2.170, 175). The story time here, late
narrative drives home the point that Agrippa is engaging 36 to early 37 CE, was a time of continuing suicides by
in recklessly fawning behavior. Roman élites accused of treason and other crimes, despite
1138
See the note to this phrase at 2.2. the fact that Tiberius’ end was drawing near, accord-
1139
See the final note in this sentence below. In the ing to bk. 6 of Tacitus’ Annals 6. (He does not mention
parallel (Ant. 18.168-69), the content of Agrippa’s (confi- Agrippa’s arrest.) By early 37 a certain L. Arruntius is
dential) prayer is first reported along similar lines, though reported to have taken his life even though he knew that
in the retelling by Eutychus (18.179-194) it grows to Tiberius would die at any moment. Tacitus describes
include conspiracy to murder Tiberius’ grandson Tiberis him as expressing (just before opening his veins) a
Gemellus, the other candidate for succession to Tiberius sentiment opposite to Agrippa’s here: G. Caesarem vix
(18.206). That addition well illustrates Josephus’ free- fi nita pueritia, ignarum omnium aut pessimis innutritum
dom in retelling narratives. (“Gaius Caesar, hardly with his childhood over, ignorant
1140
In Ant. 18.168 the domestic is named as Euty- about everything or otherwise educated by vices”). His
chus, Agrippa’s freedman and “charioteer” or driver/ motive is explained: prospectare iam se acrius servitium
reinsman (ἡνίοχος); see the note to “banqueting” in eoque fugere simul acta et instantia (“already foreseeing
this section. Curiously, in that same narrative another a harsher servitude [under Gaius] he would flee both past
charioteer named Eutychus turns up as a favorite of and future evils”) (Tacitus, Ann. 6.48).
1143
Gaius’ at the races, driving for the Green Faction (Ant. We should not think of anything resembling a
19.257). It is entirely possible that we should understand modern prison, but simply a “place of confinement”
Agrippa’s chauffeur in Rome and the sports hero as the (δεσµωτήριον), in which the detainee had no right to
same man. maintenance by the state and his welfare depended
1141
The story is much more complicated in Ant. mainly on the concern of his friends—to provide food
18.168-188: the driver Eutychus overhears the prayer, and even a bed (see next note). Cf. the note to “detain-
but cleverly keeps it to himself until his patron accuses ees” at 2.4.
book two 153

with torture1144—for six months, until he himself died after ruling for 22 years, 6 months,
Accession of
and 3 days.1145 Gaius; Agrippa
(9.6) 181 After Gaius was designated1146 Caesar,1147 he both released*1148 Agrippa from awarded
his chains and appointed* him king1149 of the tetrarchy of Philip,1150 for this man had Philip’s
tetrarchy of
Philip by Gaius.
Ant. 18.237
1144
Josephus is partial to the phrase µετ’ αἰκίας: he imperator (which was coming to have the effective mean-
has it 3 other times (War 7.369; Ant. 11.331; 13.232), ing of princeps/emperor; Barrett 1989: 53) by the Prae-
whereas before him it appears rarely (in fragments) out- torian Guard detachment led by his supporter Macro, at
side of Diodorus (4.44; 13.19; 33.14). In sharp contrast, Misenum where he was at the time. The Senate ratified
Ant. 18.202-4 has Agrippa’s 6-month imprisonment made this acclamation in a meeting on March 18, and Barrett
extremely light by the intervention of powerful friends, (1989: 71-72) makes a strong case for April 21 as the
Antonia and Macro the Praetorian Prefect, who arrange date of the law [lex] passed by the popular comitia, hence
for him to bathe daily, sleep comfortably, eat well, and the “legal” date of accession. Gaius was the son of Tibe-
receive many visitors; they also ensure that the soldiers rius’ nephew Germanicus and Vipsania Agrippina (“the
guarding him (including the centurion bound to him, Elder”)—daughter of M. Vipsanius Agrippa and Iulia—
18.196, 203) are humane. and his rise culminated a lengthy and fraught succession
1145
Tiberius died on March 16, 37 CE (Suetonius, plan on the part of Tiberius (cf. Barrett 1989: 17-41), on
Tib. 73.1; Tacitus, Ann. 6.50). Ant. 18.224 puts his reign which Ant. 18.205-227 will expatiate, in keeping with
at 22 years, 5 months, and 3 days, evidently counting that work’s interest in constitutional questions (cf. Mason
from Oct. 13, 14 CE, whereas War’s date here counts 2003a, 2008b). Caligula’s accession was followed by the
from the same time in September (the end of the 5-day rapid accumulation of other traditional powers and titles:
mourning period following Augustus’ cremation on Sept. tribunicia potestas, augustus, pater patriae, pontifex
8, and 4 days before the opening of the Senate debate maximus. His brief but notorious reign (37-41 CE) is
with Tiberius on Sept. 17: Levick 1999b: 70-71). Jose- related crisply in War , almost exclusively with reference
phus’ varying figures may be easily accounted for by the to the attempted placement of his statue in the temple
vagaries resulting from Tiberius’ long negotiations with (2.184-203). Ant. 18-19, by contrast, dwells at length
the Senate and the difficulty of defining what accession on his accession, life, death, and character (18.211-223,
meant in his case (Levick 1999b: 68-81, esp. 75), though 261-309; 19.1-156; cf. Wiseman 1991).
War ’s addition of precisely a month suggests either MS The tendency of modern scholarship has been to dis-
or author error here. Tiberius was very close to Augus- miss the more lurid stories of Caligula “the monster” as
tus’ age at death: 77 for him, nearly 76 for Augustus. For products of an extremely hostile senatorial perspective,
the various rumors about the cause of Tiberius’ death see though recent studies have been willing to accept that at
Tacitus, Ann. 6.50-51; Suetonius, Tib. 73-76. the core of the hatred probably lay a wide range of char-
1146
Josephus uses a standard Greek equivalent (ἀπο- acter defects in the young ruler (Balsdon 1934; Barrett
δείκνυµι) of Latin designare (H. J. Mason 1974: 24), in 1989; Hurley 1993: v-xviii; Wardle 1994: 63-95).
1148
political contexts a technical term (as also designatus) MSS PA, usually the two best for this work, have
for someone elected to office (e.g., as a magistrate) but instead a plural verb (“they released”), which is possible,
not yet in place. In this case, Gaius was not elected but though the parallel verb “appointed” is singular.
1149
chosen heir by the Praetorian Guard, and he immediately According to Ant. 18.228-37: Gaius first releases
begins to govern. On the succession, see the following Agrippa to house arrest, so as not to move with unseemly
note. speed in liberating a prisoner of Tiberius, intending to
1147
We might have expected Greek αὐτοκράτωρ release him immediately after Tiberius’ funeral; Antonia,
(imperator) or σεβαστός (augustus), the latter being however, persuades him to wait a while for the sake of
the title that Gaius added to his name in 37 when he decorum. Some days later, Gaius sends for him, gives
became “emperor.” In making Caesar (Καῖσαρ) Gaius’ him a haircut and new clothes, exchanges his iron chain
new designation, Josephus retrojects his own time, after for one of equal weight in gold, and gives him a diadem
the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, when Caesar had as new king.
1150
become a title; for Gaius, however, Caesar was part of The parallel in Ant. 18.237 adds the tetrarchy
the inherited family name. of Lysanias (= Abila, NW of Damascus, plus some of
With the death of Tiberius on March 16, 37 CE, Gaius Lebanon), though War 2.215 has Claudius add this only
Iulius Caesar Germanicus (Aug. 31, 12-Jan. 24, 41 CE), when Agrippa is made king in 41 CE. On the complexi-
commonly known—against his will—by the childhood ties and possibilities, see Kokkinos 1998: 280-81. The
nickname of Caligula (“Bootsy”), rose to supreme power, son of Herod and Cleopatra, Philip reportedly at first
aged only 24. He was no doubt immediately acclaimed supported his step-brother Archelaus’ claim to kingship
154 book two

died.*1151 But after Agrippa had arrived for his rule,1152 he stirred up through envy the
desires1153 of Herod the tetrarch.1154 182 In particular this man’s wife Herodias1155 kept

before Augustus in Rome (2.83), but when the princeps Ant. 1.354; 4.83; 5.119, 360; 18.44; 19.271).
1152
opted to divide the kingdom he accepted the title of tet- Philo’s Embassy to Gaius (179) narrates that the
rarch over the areas anticipated by Herod’s will: Batanea, newly appointed king stopped in Alexandria en route
Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and the area around to his possessions in the summer of 38 CE, prompting
Panias at the source of the Jordan, where he founded a riots and ridicule by the gentile population. Therefore, he
new city of Caesarea (2.94-95, 167-168). Thus his ter- remained in Rome for more than a year after Gaius made
ritory lay E and N/NE of Lake Gennesaret (Kinneret). him king. For discussion, see D. R. Schwartz (1990:
According to Ant. 18.108, before the grant to Agrippa his 55-57). On the basis of Agrippa’s coinage, Schwartz
territory had been annexed to the province of Syria—a argues that Agrippa must have counted his first regnal
transfer (in both directions) that illustrates the minimal year from the autumn (Tishri) preceding Gaius’ acces-
differences among the various modes of Roman control sion.
1153
(cf. Shatzman 1999). “Stirring up desires” (ἐγείρω [here more emphatic
1151
This after-the-fact mention of Philip’s death is a διεγείρω] + ἐπιθυµίας) is language best attested in Philo
bit confusing, for he died in 33 (ca. Sept. according to of Alexandria (Spec. 1.192; 2.193; 4.129; cf. Plato, Resp.
Kokkinos 1998: 237) or 34 CE (the standard dating, in 555a; Plutarch, Mor. [Cup. Div.] 525b, [Brut. anim.]
view of Ant. 18.106)—so: 3 or 4 years earlier than this 990d). Envy (φθόνος) was a natural correlative of such
story time and prior to (possibly a cause of) the events in desires (Life 80; cf. Plato, Leg. 863e, 869, 934; Epictetus
the previous paragraph. At 2.178 Agrippa goes to Rome, in Arrian, Diatr. 2.16.45). Ancient philosophy in gen-
apparently in the summer of 36, after which he will be eral, but especially Stoicism, assumed that excitement
imprisoned by Tiberius until the latter’s death in March of desire or passion was a bad thing.
1154
37. D. R. Schwartz (1990: 50-52) plausibly suggests that That is, Antipas (b. 25 BCE): full brother and rival
this story conflates two trips to Rome, the first in 33 of Archelaus for the kingship in 4 BCE, but granted the
or 34, when Agrippa began his cultivation of Gaius. In tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea when his brother became
any case, Josephus’ after-the-fact mention of Philip’s ethnarch (see notes at 2.20-23, 94, 167 [“the Herod called
death seems to result, again, from his drastic reduction Antipas”]). By this point he had been ruling his territory
of a fuller narrative before him, of the sort found in for perhaps 40 years (the date of Augustus’ settlement
Ant. 18: in focusing on Agrippa’s accusations against being uncertain) and he was about 62 years of age. But
Antipas and (non-) dealings with Tiberius, he saw no now he was neighbor to a nephew, some 14 years his
need to mention Philip until Agrippa’s reception of the junior, who had been granted the honor of kingship. See
kingdom required it. further the following note.
1155
In Ant. 18.106-108 he provides a glowing obituary for The famous figure whose dancing daughter—in
the long-ruling and moderate tetrarch: Philip remained the traditional reading—the gospels blame for demanding
in his territory and was constantly travelling around it, the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-28), Herodias
solicitous of his people’s well-being and hearing their (b. 15-13 BCE) was the daughter of Aristobulus (son
cases promptly; he punished the guilty and released the of Herod) and Berenice, hence the slightly older sister
innocent. That assessment coincides with the Roman of Agrippa I (1.552). Kokkinos (1998: 265-70) offers
ideal for governors, an ideal that Josephus shows in both a brilliant, albeit unprovable, theory to explain the his-
works to have been missed almost entirely by the eques- tory behind this narrative. His reconstruction takes its
trians sent to govern Judea. Philip died and was buried cue from the gospels (Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19/1), against
in his foundation of Iulias. Bernett (2007: 241-44) finds Josephus (Ant. 18.109-110), in having Herodias married
it remarkable that Josephus does not condemn Philip to Philip (not to another Herod) for about 30 years pre-
for his involvement with imperial cult and other legal ceding that tetrarch’s death. When Philip died, Kokkinos
failings; but this is perhaps to underestimate his freedom proposes, Antipas (former contender for Herod’s king-
as an author. dom) naturally thought of trying to absorb the territory
With Niese, Thackeray, and M-B I follow the present beside his own, and so visited Philip’s widow Herodias
tense given by MS P (θνήσκει) as the “more difficult to negotiate the plan before presenting it in Rome in
reading”; the rest of the Greek MSS and Lat (decesserat) 34 CE. She agreed, but (now aged about 48) insisted
have a more suitable perfect or pluperfect. Awkward on a marriage to cement the deal, which would require
though it seems here with another present-tense verb Antipas to divorce his royal Nabatean wife (cf. Ant.
carrying the main action, Josephus often speaks of some- 18.109), whom Kokkinos identifies as the now 50-year-
one’s dying with a narrative present (War 1.23; 3.334; old Phasaelis (1998: 230-32). The latter heard and fled
book two 155

goading him into a hope of kingship,1156 scolding1157 [him for] his inactivity1158 and as-
serting that by his not wanting to sail to Caesar1159 he was depriving himself of greater
rule: “For, given that he [Caesar] had made Agrippa a king from a private citizen, would
he indeed1160 hesitate1161 [to make] him one, from a tetrarch?”1162 183 Having been per-
suaded1163 in these matters, Herod went to Gaius, by whom his greed was penalized1164

1157
to her father King Aretas IV, who must have been all the This prefixed form of the verb (κατονειδίζω) is a
more perturbed because he also had designs on this terri- hallmark of War ’s style: though used again at 2.609, 638
tory, which the divorce would thwart. Aretas’ subsequent (both predicated of Josephus’ character); 4.160—in all
defeat of Antipas in battle would in turn have angered these cases intensified with πολλά—it is not found in lit-
Tiberius all the more (cf. 18.114) because the prin- erature before Josephus, except in a variant at Dionysius,
ceps had already approved Antipas’ scheme. Kokkinos Ant. rom. 11.42.4. Cyril of Alexandria is the next user.
1158
observes that Tiberius’ earlier decision to hold the tribute Greek τὴν ἀργίαν. Cf. 4.160, where Ananus
from Philip’s tetrarchy in escrow, apparently pending and Jesus scold the Jerusalemites for their sluggishness
some future settlement (Ant. 18.108), suits the notion (νωθείαν) in failing to act against the Zealots.
1159
that he was open to establishing a new Herodian prince Since this story has said nothing about Antipas’
there. Finally, Gaius’ appointment of Agrippa would be reluctance, it once again appears that Josephus is com-
a deliberate attempt at once to promote his friend and to pressing a fuller account: Ant. 18.245-46 stresses the ini-
undo the plan backed by Tiberius. tial determination of Antipas not to go to Rome, content
Attractive though it is because of its explanatory as he was with his quiet life.
1160
power, the theory requires that Josephus was com- This correlation of clauses with ὅπου and ἦπου is
pletely wrong (in spite of apparent confidence) in nam- rare, though Isocrates (Antid. 70) instances a similar a
ing Herodias’ husband before Antipas—not in itself a fortiori sense: “And since (ὅπου) in addressing a king I
difficult proposition—and it must also insert an earlier have spoken for his subjects, surely (ἦπου) I would urge
trip by Antipas to Rome in 34, where Josephus’ nar- upon men who live under a democracy to pay court to
rative seems to have little room. Further, the standard the people.”
1161
hypothesis that Mark was in error is easy to accept, both With MSS PAM (followed by Niese and Thack-
because of numerous errors in Mark and because Mat- eray) I read διστάζω (only here in Josephus), which
thew and Luke, which use Mark and frequently correct requires that this be a question as the MSS punctuate.
it, either hedge or omit the connection between Herodias MSS LVRC and M (margin) have instead διανίστηµι,
and Philip (some MSS of Matt 14:3; Luke 3:20). Even which could be either a question or an emphatic state-
if Kokkinos were wrong in some specifics, however, it ment, as the ἦπου γ’ might otherwise suggest: “I am cer-
does seem antecedently likely that Antipas would have tain that he would raise up [a king] from a tetrarch. . . .”
1162
coveted Philip’s territory, and that such designs factored Direct quotation here emphasizes the wife’s malig-
(more than simply the wish to be a king like Agrippa) nant role; see the note to “Herodias.” The form of her
into his resentment of Agrippa. argument serves to keep matters at a superficial (osten-
However that may be, Josephus’ Roman audience pre- sibly womanish) level, for Agrippa, Judean blueblood
sumably would not have known a back story of Herodias’ and friend of the princeps, was certainly no ordinary
political intentions, even if Kokkinos has this right. At citizen. A stronger argument might have been that Anti-
the level of War ’s story (leaving aside historical reality), pas was King Herod’s own son, named in one version of
Josephus simply blames her for inciting the tetrarch’s the will as his heir (1.646), whereas Agrippa was a much
implausible ambitions. The cliché that noble women younger grandson of the king. Indeed, this is a key point
were often the cause of powerful men’s downfall was in the much fuller presentation of Herodias’ argument in
widespread in ancient literature, as in Tacitus’ portraits of Ant. 18.240-46: although both men are descendants of
the principal women of the Julio-Claudian line, and it is Herod, Agrippa is the wastrel son of a man condemned
common in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 4.129-154; 13.400-432; to death by the king, whereas Antipas is the king’s own
17.34-76; 18.344-352, 360-62). Ant. 18.255 stresses even beloved son.
1163
more obviously the woman’s evil counsel: Antipas pays Or “induced.” See the notes to the latter verb at
the penalty for having listened to “womanish frivolous 1.5; 2.55.
1164
chatter” (γυναικείων ἀκορασαµένῳ κουφολογίων). This note in conjunction with the following state-
1156
That is, rekindling the hope of kingship that Anti- ment about Agrippa seems a tell-tale sign that Josephus
pas had harbored as a young man more than 40 years has compressed an Antiquities-like narrative. Here he
earlier: the struggle that opened War 2 (2.20-23, 94, has dramatically trimmed the story to make it a matter
167). of simple over-reach on Antipas’ part, whereas the longer
156 book two

with exile to Spain.1165 For Agrippa had followed after him as accuser,1166 and to him Gaius
added the tetrarchy also of that man [Herod Antipas].1167 And Herod, his wife sharing his
banishment,1168 expired* in Spain.1169
(10.1) 1841170 Gaius Caesar abused fortune1171 to such a degree1172 as both to consider
himself a God and to wish to be called1173 the same,1174 to skim off1175 from the home-

story has Antipas banished precisely because of charges would have explored possibilities for alliance with the
of treason or maiestas brought by Agrippa (Ant. 18.247- Parthians. They had always had interests in the Levant
252). The two motives for the exile are both given here, and, even though they were seldom in a position to do
but they sit uneasily together, for why would Agrippa anything about it, there is evidence of limited adventur-
have been needed to document Antipas’ evident greed? ism on the part of the Artabanus III, king through the
That Antipas was exiled in 39 CE seems a necessary 30s (e.g., Dio 68.26.1-4; see Introduction).
1167
conclusion, and one universally accepted, from estab- As M-B (1.441 n. 107) observe, Ant. 19.351
lished dates in Agrippa’s career both before (e.g., arrival complicates matters by claiming that Agrippa received
in the kingdom, summer of 38) and after this event. Antipas’ territory only in his 4th year of ruling under
1165
Here is a significant problem of method in tex- Gaius, which should be the year 40, a year after Antipas’
tual and historical criticism. MSS PC and corrected L removal.
1168
have Σπανίαν and most of the others Ἱσπανίαν (some According to the parallel, Gaius offered to spare
with smooth breathing), though uncorrected L and A Herodias when he learned that she was the sister of his
had Πανίαν (Panias, in the newly acquired territory of friend Agrippa, but she was determined to share her hus-
Agrippa, Antipas’ enemy!). But the parallel at Ant. 18.252 band’s fortunes whether good or bad; Gaius sentenced
pointedly makes Antipas’ place of exile Lugdunum in her to exile (giving also her possessions to Agrippa)
Gaul, which is close to Vienna, the place of Archelaus’ because of her impudence (Ant. 18.252-54).
1169
earlier exile (cf. the note to [Gaul] at 2.111), and so has See the note to “Spain” earlier in this section,
much in its favor. Kokkinos (1998: 235) simply declares where the same MS considerations apply.
1170
that he was banished to Gaul. Both Niese and M-B go so This paragraph is taken bodily into Constantinus
far as to adopt the emendation Γαλλίαν, without any MS Porphyrogenitus’ 10th-cent. work, Of Virtues and Vices
support, though Thackeray stays with Σπανίαν. Since 95.63.
1171
this reading has on its side both the overwhelming MS Greek ἐξύβρισεν εἰς τὴν τύχην, a phrase that
support and the principle that one should favor the most Josephus will also use at 2.250 of Nero, and at 5.120
difficult possibility (if it will explain how the easier ones of the Judean rebels (who foolishly make too much of
came to be), there seems to be little alternative here. their temporary victories against the legions). It seems to
Hoehner (1972: 262 and n. 1) follows a long tra- be Josephus’ coinage, though it draws from a Polybian
dition of scholars in arguing that there is no problem theme underlying his work (see Introduction): fortune
accepting both War ’s “Spain” and Antiquities’ “Gaul” if brings temporary success and catastrophe, always subject
the Lugdunum to which Antipas was exiled was not the to sudden reversal, and therefore the proper response to
famous Roman capital and gateway to Gaul (modern success is humility. See the notes to “authority” at 2.140
Lyons), but rather Lugdunum Convenarum (modern St. and “fortune” at 2.373. Josephus will elaborate in Ant.
Bertrand-de-Comminges), at the N edge of the Pyrenese 19.15-16: Gaius’ sudden death, which preserved the laws
mountains in Aquitania and therefore close enough to of all peoples and the survival of the Judeans, is a lesson
Hispania to be included there as well as in Gaul. Neat “to those who imagine that good fortune is eternal, but
though this theory is, it does not really solve the problem do not [realize] that if it is not accompanied by virtue
that Josephus’ “Lugdunum, a city in Gaul” (Ant. 18.252) it turns out badly.”
1172
would more naturally be taken to mean the famous city, As in the case of Nero, who will also “abuse for-
and that even Lugdunum Convenarum could hardly be tune” (2.250-251), Josephus assumes that the story is
called “Spain.” familiar to his Roman audience. He will build on their
1166
See the note to this word at 2.178. The parallel knowledge of Gaius’ misdeeds in Rome, briefly listed
(Ant. 18.240-52) narrates that in response to Antipas’ bid here, to treat exclusively the princeps’ efforts in Judea.
1173
for royal status, Agrippa sent a report to Gaius accusing Philo puts it perhaps more effectively: “Gaius
his uncle of conspiracy with the Parthians, claiming also grew beside himself, not only saying but actually sup-
that he had earlier conspired with (L. Aelius) Seianus posing himself to be a God” (Legat. 162). Barrett (1989:
against Tiberius. Although it is impossible to know 140-53) offers crucial historical context for the wide-
whether that charge has any substance to it, it is entirely spread impression that Gaius made an insane demand
plausible that if Antipas was pining for a kingdom he to be worshiped as a God. He observes that: the lines
book two 157

land1176 its noblest men,1177 and to extend the impiety even to Judea.1178 185 Accordingly, Gaius orders his
he sent Petronius1179 to Hierosolyma with an army to set up1180 the statues1181 of himself statues erected
in Jerusalem
temple. Ant.
18.261

between divine and human were often blurry in Greco- complex than this one. There Gaius decides to install the
Roman culture; the Greek East in particular had shown statue afer he takes umbrage at a delegation of Judeans
no hesitation to offer worship to rulers; and although it from Alexandria led by Philo, in light of accusations
was considered immoderate to accept worship in Rome by the other delegation (which included Apion) that the
while living (deification of “good emperors” at death Judeans dishonor Gaius by refusing to host his images
being the standard), there was a range of nuances in or swear oaths to him (18.258). The negotiations between
the principes’ responses to offers of temples from their Petronius and the Judeans are more protracted there, and
provincial subjects. The incident about to be described divided between Ptolemais and Tiberias (18.269-278); it
seems to have had a significant political impetus gener- is members of the royal élite who convince Petronius to
ated by non-Judeans living in Jamnia (cf. Philo, Legat. challenge Gaius (18.273-278); and King Agrippa, then
199-203); Josephus’ account is calculated to elicit, from in Rome, temporarily persuades Gaius to abandon his
a Roman audience long accustomed to despising Gaius’ plan (18.289-301). Philo’s contemporary account, in par-
memory, a sympathetic ear for the Judean sense of hav- ticular, provides crucial context missing here (viz., the
ing been unreasonably imposed upon by Roman authori- instigation of the whole affair by disgruntled gentiles
ties. living in Jamnia). For judicious efforts to reconstruct
1174
Unlike Philo (Legat. 12-14), Josephus himself at the events, see e.g. Smallwood (1961: 31-6, 267-325;
Ant. 18.255-56, Suetonius (Cal. 37), and Cassius Dio 1976: 174-80, 235-50) and Barrett (1989: 182-91). Curi-
(59.2.6), who allow Gaius an initial constructive or even ously (given that it involved a significant military cam-
honorable phase before a severe illness altered his mind, paign), the entire episode is absent from Suetonius’ Life
War here compresses his entire reign into a portrait of of Gaius.
1179
thoroughgoing impiety. On Gaius’ divine pretensions, Publius Petronius came from a rising family in
see e.g. Philo, Legat. 75, 79, 81-114, where the princeps the early principate: his grandfather had been eques-
is said, with abundant sarcasm, to have imitated vari- trian prefect of Egypt, and his father triumvir monetalis
ous demigods and the most revered deities in dress and under Augustus. Petronius’ personal success in the cur-
appropriation of symbols. sus honorum led to the office of suffect consul in 19 CE,
1175
This elegant verb (ἀκροτοµέω), “cut off the peak/ his brother holding the same honor in 25; from about
top/zenith,” occurs only here in Josephus, and rarely 29 to 35 he served as proconsul of Asia (PIR2 6.101-2).
before his time. The cognate adjectives usually refer to Petronius married a daughter of the consular Plautii fam-
cut rock or stone (πέτρα, λίθος). The reference is to ily, and their grandchildren would include the ordinary
executions of the nobility: the top layer of society. Cf. consul of 61 as well as Petronia, the wife of the short-
Ant. 19.1-211 (with references in the following note) for lived emperor A. Vitellius (PIR2). Petronius replaced L.
extraordinary detail; Wiseman 1991. Vitellius as legate of Syria, probably serving from 39
1176
Greek τὴν πατρίδα—in this case, Rome. For (possibly 37 or 38) to 41 or 42 (cf. Ant. 18.261; Small-
Gaius’ depradations in Rome, see the detailed narrative wood 1961: 267; PIR2). That Josephus has Gaius charge
of Ant. 19.1-211, with translation and commentary by the Syrian legate with this task, omitting any mention
Wiseman 1991; Galimberti 2001: 165-92. For historical of a prefect in Judea, tends to confirm that Judea was at
interpretation, Barrett 1989: 73-113; on the significance this point still fully integrated into the province of Syria;
of that narrative for Josephus’ Flavian-Roman context, see note to “province” at 2.117. On Josephus’ claim that
Mason 2003a, 2008b. Petronius was sent in order to install Gaius’ statue and
1177
Cf. the silent object lesson given by the tyrant the attendant chronological problems, see the notes to
Thrasybulus of Miletus to a messenger from Periander “unsown” and “sowing” at 2.200.
1180
of Corinth (Herodotus 5.92f): cutting down the tallest This verb (ἐγκαθιδρύω) is almost peculiar to
ears of wheat, he “destroyed the best and richest part Josephus. Although before Josephus the word is hardly
of the crop.” attested—Euripides (Iph. Taur. 978), the Hippocratic
1178
The following story of Gaius’ effort to place his corpus (Anat. 1), and Aristotle (Mund. 397b)—, he has
statue in the Jerusalem temple is described in greater it 5 times (also 2.197, 266; 6.47; Ant. 8.393). In the 2nd
detail in Philo’s Embassy to Gaius (188-348), nearly cent. Athenaeus uses it (Deipn. 11.46; 14.50 [Kaibel])
contemporary with the events, and mentioned briefly and Julius Pollux (Onom. 1.11) cites it as he illustrates
by Tacitus in his summary of Judean-Roman conflicts the many different ways of saying the same thing (build-
preceding the war (Hist. 5.9). Josephus’ own parallel ing a temple), though strangely it does not enter standard
account (Ant. 18.256-309), is much longer and more usage until late antiquity. The future participle makes
158 book two

in the shrine, having ordered that if the Judeans were not going to accept [them],1182 he
should get rid of those who were preventing it and reduce all the remaining nation to utter
slavery.1183 186 But God was evidently concerned1184 about these orders.
While Petronius, with three legions and many auxiliaries1185 from Syria, was driving
out of Antiocheia into Judea,1186 187 some of the Judeans did not believe in the rumors of
war, whereas those who did believe1187 were without resources for defense.1188 Fear quickly
spread through everyone—the army being already at Ptolemais.1189
The city of (10.2) 188 This is a coastal city of Galilee,1190 founded opposite the Great Plain.1191
Ptolemais

sense here to express purpose; thus Niese has not opted the border along the Euphrates from the powerful Par-
for the aorist participle found in MSS PALVR1. thian armies—the legions based in Syria, of which there
1181
All other sources (note to “Judea” at 2.184) indi- were 4 by this time (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5): III Gallica, VI
cate a single colossal statue. Since Josephus has not Ferrata, X Fretensis, and XII Fulminata (detailed analy-
mentioned these images before, the definite article may sis in Dabrowa 1986, 1993, 1996). That claim would
indicate his Roman audience’s awareness of the story (cf. agree with Josephus’ own statement in Ant. 18.262, that
Tacitus, Hist. 5.9). Petronius brought two legions. Whether two legions or
1182
This phrasing εἰ µὴ δέχοιντο Ἰουδαῖοι recalls the three, the force was calculated to enforce Gaius’ desire
preceding account of Pilate’s attempt to install another by overcoming any Judean opposition.
1186
Caesar’s images in Jerusalem (εἰ µὴ προσδέξαιντο [τὰς For Antioch, the chief city of Roman Syria, see
εἰκόνας]), which in several respects prepares for this the note at 2.18. This account passes over Philo’s claim
episode; see the note to “images” at 2.173. that Petronius, reluctant from the start to execute Gaius’
1183
The simpler form of the verb “to enslave,” command, ironically ordered a magnificent new statue to
ἀνδραποδίζω, appears 10 times, evenly spread through be built, from the finest materials—to delay as long as
3 works of Josephus (with 4 occurrences in War 1-3); possible—in Sidon, far from the Judean heartland.
1187
cognates are the nouns ἀνδραποδισµός (“enslaving”: This narrative technique of charting reactions on a
Ant. 2.248; 20.123) and ἀνδράποδον (“slave”: War spectrum, from disbelief on one end (ἀπιστέω) to belief
4.394; Ant. 2.189; 4.309; 6.41, etc.; Apion 2.133). Here with some other condition on the other, turns up again
Josephus uses an emphatic form of the verb, by add- at War 5.539; 6.214.
1188
ing the prefix ἐξ-. This form is concentrated in War 1-3 Greek ἐν ἀµηχάνῳ πρὸς τὴν ἄµυναν; cf. the
(1.65, 88, 222; here; 3.134, 304; otherwise Ant. 12.296; similar expression in Josephus’ younger contemporary
14.275). Possibly Josephus focuses on this word group Plutarch (Crass. 25.7; cf. Dio 10.40.45; 36.23.3).
1189
in War 1-3 because the more obvious word for slavery, For Ptolemais, see the note at 2.67. Ant. 18.269
δουλεία, will become a key term in the work’s ongo- will add that Petronius’ army wintered there in prepara-
ing debate about the meaning of political freedom and tion for a spring campaign, a timing consistent in both of
slavery (2.88, 349-80, 367; 4.175, 344, 394; 5.422, 458; Josephus’ accounts. Since he attaches the statue mandate
6.206; 7.255, 302, 323-24, etc.). See Introduction. to Petronius’ commission as legatus, he implies that this
1184
Although MSS PLVR have ἔµελλε here, suggest- occurred in the autumn (of 39 CE); but see the notes to
ing hesitation on the part of God, reading ἔµελε with “unsown” and “sowing” at 2.200.
1190
Niese, Thackeray, M-B, and others (inspired by the Of the many kinds of digression employed by
ἔµµελε of MS C) makes better sense of the syntax and Josephus—to vary scene, provide relief and delight,
meaning: Gaius’ orders were a matter of concern to God. educate an audience without knowledge of Syrian con-
Elsewhere too Josephus has God as the agent of such ditions, and create suspense—the geographical excur-
concern (War 5.60; Ant. 3.88; 4.318; 7.45). Divine con- sus is a favorite in the War (e.g., 3.35-43; 4.4-8; esp.
cern for human affairs is an ongoing theme of Josephus’ 5.136-247). On the models and functions of geographical
works, becoming the Leitmotif of Antiquities (1.14, 20; digressions in Josephus, see Shahar 2004; on geography
10.277-80). and history more generally in ancient writers, Clarke
1185
In War , this configuration of forces recalls Varus’ 1999 (who argues that geography is far more integral to
3-legion army (2.40, 66-67), possibly evoking for a the historical project—and vice versa—than the conven-
Roman audience the legions that Varus would later lose tional assessments of its role as mere variatio or “back-
in Germany, and it anticipates the army of 3 legions plus ground” suggest). The much fuller parallel to the story
auxiliaries that will be brought by Vespasian and Titus of Petronius and Gaius’ statue, in Ant. 18, will omit this
(War 3.65). Philo (Legat. 207), who lived through these description of Ptolemais and its surroundings.
events, sarcastically relates that Petronius was ordered What does it contribute to the narrative here? One
to take into Judea half of the force assigned to protect clue is Josephus’ inclusion of Ptolemais in Galilee,
book two 159

It is surrounded by mountains: from the eastward range—that of Galilee1192—it is 60

stadia1193 away;1194 from the southern one—to Carmel1195—a distance of 120 stadia;1196
but in relation to the highest one, toward Ursa1197—the one the locals call the “Ladder of
the Tyrians”1198—this [city] stands off 100 stadia.1199 189 At a distance of just about two
stadia from the town, the river called Beleos1200 flows by, very small indeed, by the side
of which is the tomb of Memnon,1201 which has near it a 100-cubit1202 space worthy of

whereas elsewhere he pointedly distinguishes between War 1.66, 250, in such a way that he seems to assume
Galilee, which is Judean, and this Roman city (War audience knowledge. This appears reasonable: it is dis-
3.29-30, 35-36, esp. 38; Life 105, 118, 213-15 [esp. 214], cussed by Scylax, Peripl. 104; Strabo 16.2.27-28; Pliny,
342). This discussion of Ptolemais’ natural wonders—the Nat. 5.75; 36.190; Tacitus, Hist. 2.78; Suetonius, Vesp.
world-famous sand of the Belus River (below), one of 5.6; Claudius Ptolemaeus 5.15.5.
1196
only 4 or 5 known centers of glass-quality sand in the The Carmel range is actually somewhat closer to
Roman world (Isings 1957: 2; Vose 1980: 27-8), and Ptolemais on the S than to the Tyrian Ladder on the N,
an incidental note about the nearby tomb of renowned about 15 km/9.3 miles as the crow flies (75 stadia), or
Greek hero thrown in for good measure, allegedly in 18-20 km/11-12.5 miles (up to 100 stadia) following the
Judean territory—helps to raise the Judeans’ profile with curved highway around the Haifa Bay. If Josephus was
respect to both resources and technical skill. Some schol- thinking of the distance due S, past Gaba-Hippeon, to
ars are convinced that Judeans had a lot to do with the meet the Carmel range at one of its further points, the
“Phoenician” or Syrian glassware that was widely traded distance could easily exceed 120 stadia.
1197
throughout the E Mediterranean—even before 100 CE, Greek κατ’ ἄρκτον. Although the expression
after which the evidence becomes considerable (Kisa means “to the N,” I translate thus because Josephus
1908: 1.96-100; Neuburg 1949: 26-54; 1962: 50-70; does not give the compass direction (βόρειος or simi-
Engle 1984; Isings [1957: 4] is skeptical). On the basis lar), which he uses dozens of times elsewhere and which
of waste from a glass factory from mid-1st century BCE would complement “southern” (µεσηµβρινός), used of
Jerusalem, V. Tatton-Brown (in Tait 1991: 62) considers Carmel in this passage. The more colorful term here,
it likely that Judeans were among the pioneers of glass which he also has frequently, evokes the constellation of
blowing. Without making any of this explicit, Josephus’ Ursa Major. On the importance of the constellations for
momentary incorporation of the famed source for glass- ancient cosmology, see Hannah 2005: 5-28.
1198
sand into Judean Galilee suggests some such link. As Josephus’ language indicates, he does not
1191
That is, the NW to SE Plain of Esdraelon, or expect his Roman audience to know this name, which
Jezreel Valley, which separates Galilee from Samaria; is used in 1 Macc 11:59 (cf. Ant. 13.146) for the rapid
cf. 2.595; 3.39; Life 115, 126, 318. The most obvious ascent, on the road to Tyre, between Rosh ha-Niqra and
approach to the plain of Acco/Ptolemais from Judean Ras el-Bayada.
1199
territory is via the narrow pass that closes the Great Plain This precisely matches the N/S distance on the
at the NW end. Roman coastal road: 20 km (12.5 miles).
1192 1200
See the note to “Galilee and Idumea” at 2.43. Lat. beleum. The river is called Belus in Pliny (Nat.
1193
About 12 km. See the note to “stadia” at Life 64 5.75 [also Pacida, though that name usually attaches to
in BJP 9. the Qishon to the S]; 36.190), who puts it at 5,000 paces
1194
This figure closely matches the roughly 11-12 km (5 Roman miles), and in Tacitus, Hist. 5.7. The name is a
distance between Ptolemais and the nearest points at Latinized form of Ba‘al, the Semitic name for God, and
which the Galilean hills rise to the NE and the E. In specifically here of Tammuz-Adonis, the God of vegeta-
Life 214 Josephus gives the same figure, however, for tion and healing worshiped in Sidon to the N. In Greek
the distance between Ptolemais and Chabolos/Chaboulon myth, Heracles was directed by the Delphic oracle to this
(Life 214), which he regards as the W limit of Galilee river, to a plant that would heal his wounds; he founded
(War 2.503; 3.38): Chaboulon will fall first to Cestius the city Acco nearby as a result. And so the river God
Gallus’ forces in late 66 (War 2.503-4), and Josephus Belus appears on Roman coins, with the healing plant,
will use it as his own base for monitoring the Romans through the early centuries of the Common Era (e.g.,
at Ptolemais during the early revolt (Life 213-14). The Engle 1978: 11). For pictures and detailed analysis of the
village of Kabul, usually identified as the site of ancient sacred river’s role in glass-making, which she considers
Chaboulon, is somewhat further away—roughly 15 km a Hurrian (biblical “Horite”) specialty from about 2,000
to the SE. BCE, see Engle 1978.
1195 1201
Josephus has mentioned Mt. Carmel, one of the The mythical Memnon, presumably the one in
most prominent and impressive features of the coast, at view here, had tombs (memnoneia) in various middle-
160 book two

wonder.1203 190 For it is circular and hollow,1204 and it yields the glassy sand:1205 whenever

eastern centers. Son of Dawn (Eos) and Tithonus (Hesiod, µεγάλη κυκλοτέρής). Latin: est enim species uallis
Theog. 984-85), this king of the Ethiopians—according rotundae.
1205
to the now lost Cyclic epic Aethiopis (cf. West 2003 for Josephus’ use of the definite article (τὴν ὑελίνον
summary and revisionist analysis), supplemented by early ψάµµον) may reflect an assumption that his Roman
6th-cent. BCE art and occasional notes in other poetry of audience has heard of this phenomenon. This is plau-
the period—brought his forces to assist his uncle Priam sible, since the remarkable properties of the Belus river’s
in the defense of Troy (cf. Od. 11.522; cf. 3.111-12; sandbanks had been famous for centuries among Egyp-
4.185-202). During his climactic fight with Achilles, the tians, Phoenicians, and Greeks, and were mentioned by
two heroes’ mothers (Eos and Thetis) pleaded with Zeus his near contemporaries in Rome, Pliny the Elder (Nat.
for his favor. When Memnon lost, one tradition holds 5.75; 36.190-91) and Tacitus (Hist. 5.7). Indeed, Pliny
that he became immortal, another that the smoke from famously claims that glass was discovered at this very
his pyre became warring birds who fell back into its spot (Nat. 36.190-91): some traders in soda (or nitrum:
flames—and so birds called memnonides gather annually a form of sodium carbonate and bicarbonate), the story
at his tomb to fight and die again. goes, forced ashore and attempting to cook meals by
Where was his tomb? Perhaps because of the mythi- resting pots on their cargo, were amazed to see that their
cal importance of his death, local traditions grew up in campfires fused the sand and the soda to produce glass.
various places. The leading contenders were Persian Susa Although one function of the soda is to lower the tem-
(Strabo 15.3.2; Pausanias 10.31.7), Egyptian Thebes perature necessary for melting the silica of the sand from
(mod. Luxor), and Egyptian Abydos (Strabo 17.1.42)— around 1,700 degrees C to less than 1,000 degrees, it is
the seeming disparity made intelligible by the fact that doubtful that the traders’ campfires produced such heat!
“Ethiopians” were located both in the far E (Il. 1.423-24; More likely, glass production was discovered incidentally
23.205-7; Herodotus 5.54.2; 7.151 places them in Susa) in other smelting operations, whether strictly commercial
and in Africa S of Egypt. Drews (1969) thinks that the or religious (Neuburg 1949: 1); in any case Egypt, rich
epic writers assumed the eastern-Susanian origin of the in sodium carbonate, was producing glass objects well
hero. The Theban connection involves in some way a lin- before 2,000 BCE (Neuburg 1949: 8, 11; Healy 1999:
guistic parallel between the Amen- pharaohs and ‘Mem- 355). In his other relevant passage, Pliny’s language is
non’; the tomb of Ramesses VI hosted the Colossi of
closer to Josephus: “the river Pacida or Belus, which
Memnon, a major tourist attraction then and now. From
covers its narrow bank with sand of a kind used for mak-
one of the two seated statues of Amenhotep III, whom
ing glass” (vitri fertiles harenas). Tacitus is particularly
R. D. Griffith (1998) indeed considers the model of the
interesting because he knows about the glass-making
ancient Memnon, in front of the tomb complex, a breath-
properties of the Belus’ sand, even though he is con-
like sound was said to be produced by the first rays of
fused about the river’s location (making it “also”—like
dawn: even though Strabo heard it, he preferred to think
it some kind of trick (Strabo 17.1.46; Pausanias 1.42.3; the Jordan—empty into “the Judean sea” [Iudaico mari
cf. Bowersock 1984). inlabitur], which seems to mean the Dead Sea). This
Strabo also claims that Susa hosted monuments to confusion suggests, however, that he has heard about the
Memnon, but reports (15.3.2) a tradition from Simonides sand of the Belus, and remembered the basic story.
that the hero was actually buried the small coastal town The chief ingredients of glass are silica, from high-
of Paltus in Syria. This was less than 300 km (about 180 quality sand, alkali (whether sodium- or potassium-
miles) N of Ptolemais, which puts it in the same general based), and lime, the last of which is needed to give the
region and makes sense of competing claims for Mem- product sufficient strength (Vose 1980: 1-25). It seems
non’s tomb indicated by Josephus’ reference here. that Roman glass typically had around 71% silica and
1202
About 50 m (164 ft), apparently indicating the 16% soda (Neuburg 1949: 2; cf. Healy 1999: 352 n. 28
diameter of the hollow. for a recommended standard formula, and for detailed
1203
Pliny’s account says nothing about such a depres- scientific analysis of ancient and medieval glass, McCray
sion near the tomb, but rather claims that the special 1998). Trowbridge 1930 provides an analysis of the
sand from the muddy river appears only with the ebbing ancient terminology involved, with modern correspon-
of the tide (Nat. 36.191). dences and translation issues. Although Pliny’s account
1204
Greek κυκλοτερὴς µὲν γὰρ ἐστιν καὶ κοῖλος. omits any mention of lime, the needed 3rd ingredient, some
The alliteration in kappa helps the description; cf. Strabo scholars suggest that the sand of the Belus’ banks might
describing a mysterious crocus-producing cave in Cilicia have contained substantial amounts of limestone (e.g.,
(14.5.5: “it is a great circular hollow,” ἔστι δὲ κοιλὰς V. Tatton-Brown and C. Andrews in Tait 1991: 21).
book two 161

the many ships docking here empty it,1206 the area refills itself1207 again, with the winds
drawing to it the glistening sand just as if by design,1208 while the mine1209 is immediately
changing [it] all into glass. 191 And more amazing than this, it seems to me,1210 is that
the glass overflowing from the spot becomes ordinary1211 sand again. This place, then, has
received such a peculiar nature.1212
(10.3) 192 Having mustered1213 in the plain at Ptolemais,1214 Judeans with women and Petronius
children1215 kept imploring1216 Petronius, first for the sake of their ancestral laws1217 and negotiates over
statues. Ant.
18.263

Pliny claims that sand from the Belus was for some phrase εἰκῇ, vastly more common in other ancient
time the sole source of silica for glass (Nat. 36.191), writers, appears only at Ant. 12.34; Apion 2.234). This
adding that Sidon, up the coast from Ptolemais, was concentration is the more impressive because the word is
a major center of glass production (36.193; cf. Strabo not widely used before Josephus, who includes it in the
16.75.8, who knows only that the Sidonians have espe- first sentence of the prologue and in each book of War
cially suitable sand). An excavation led by Z. Goldmann except 7. Notice the clustered recurrence at 2.195. Rela-
in 1956 revealed a Hellenistic-Roman glass furnace in tively heavy users are Polybius (5: 4 of these comparative
Ptolemais (EAEHL 1.18). On the Sidonian industry, see or superlative), Philo (17), and Josephus’ contemporary
Engle 1980, 1983; the former also treats the important Epictetus (8).
1212
role of Bet Shearim—20 km E of Haifa and therefore Literally: “received such a nature (φύσις) by lot
close to the Belus—as a glass-making centre by at least (λαγχάνω)”—or from the Gods, or as a given. For the
100 CE; cf. Engle 1973: 1-50. For pre-70 Jerusalem’s sense of the phrase, see Plato, Phil. 49c; Tim. 54a; 63b;
involvement in glass production, see Engle 1984. Dio 38.11.3; Plotinus, Enn. 6.1.17. Here it functions as
1206
Presumably, ships to carry the sand to glass pro- a decisive end to the geographical digression.
1213
duction centers, especially in Sidon. The verb ἀθροίζω (here passive) suggests more
1207
The compound verb ἀντιπληρόω has very sparse than mere assembling or coming together (συνάγω,
attestation in Greek literature (Thucydides 7.22.2, 69.1; συνέρχοµαι). Typically used of armies, it highlights the
8.17.1; Xenophon, Hell. 4.8.10; 5.1.5, 4.65; Cyr. 2.2.26; spontaneous quasi-military discipline that Josephus regu-
Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 1.13.3, then in late antiquity); larly attributes to the Judeans in War ; it is cognate to the
Josephus uses it here and in a different sense at 2.502. adverb ἀθρόος (“in close order, in column, en masse”)
1208
It has been suggested that the sand of the Belus that he uses of the Judeans at 2.12, 16, 170, 174 (the
is well suited to glass-making because of its fineness, latter two in the face of Pilate’s provocation).
1214
which results from its having been carried by hamsin Just described (2.188). Philo (Legat. 225-27) has
winds from Africa—the finer sand traveling farthest. the Judeans remarkably filling “the whole of Phoeni-
I have been unable to verify the source of this theory, cia” and dividing themselves into 6 groups: males and
though it might help to explain Josephus’ reference to females, each grouped according to age—the old, the
the winds. young, and those in their prime. It is the male elders in
1209
Or “quarry” (τὸ µέταλλον, as 7.189; Ant. 16.128): chorus who address the legate.
1215
not a processing operation with mills, as in modern Referring to women and children in crowd scenes
times, but simply the ore site—in this case a naturally as a way of intensifying the tragic pathos was increas-
mysterious one (2.191). ingly common in Hellenistic historiography: Herodotus
1210
Editorial µοι δοκεῖ is a favorite device in Jose- (“children and women”): 1.164, 166, 176; 2.30; 3.45;
phus, which helps to strengthen the bond of intimacy 4.121; 5.14; 6.19, 138; 8.36, 60, 106; Euripides, Med.
with his audience by injecting personal judgment and 1143; Xenophon, Anab. 1.4.8; Cyr. 3.1.25, 29, 3.44;
emotion into the narrative: cf. 4.17; 5.552; Ant. 16.159; 8.8.4; Hippias, Frag. 1.42, 51; Manetho, Frag. 42;
Apion 2.143. He can also lend it to his characters for Aeneas Tacticus 3.6; 5.1; Philo Mech., Parasc. 94.47;
their speeches: War 1.373; Ant. 8.227; 15.384. The more Polybius, about 46 times—e.g., 1.74, 66.8, 68.3; 2.56.7,
characteristic and distinctive expression in War, however, 58.10; 3.109.7; 4.32.8, 54.2, 71.13; 5.78.1, 111.6; 8.36.3;
is ἔµοιγε δοκεῖν: 2.151, 479; 3.202; 4.312; 6.4. 9.39.3; 10.17.6, 34.3, 10, 35.1; 11.28.7; 12.6b.8, 25h.5;
1211
Or more strongly, “useless, pointless.” This may 15.11.5; 16.25.6, 31.5, 32.4; 1 Macc. 1.32, 60; 2.38;
be the object that Gaius Caligula had in mind when he 3.20; 5.13, 23, 45; 8.10; 13.6, 45; 2 Macc 6:10; 12:3, 21;
dismissed the style of Seneca as “sand without lime” 15:8; Posidonius [Theiler] frag. 99, 136c, 138; Diodorus,
(Suetonius, Cal. 53.2): it was incapable of producing 70 times—1.57.6, 67.6, 71.4, 88.6; 2.1.10, 40.5; 3.15.2,
something beautiful. Josephus uses the adjective εἰκαῖος 18.5, 24.3, 32.1, 53.3, 54.4; 4.31.1, 55.1; 11.13.4, 28.5,
9 times, but only in War 1-6 (though the cognate word- 39.1; 12.42.2, 46.7, etc.; Dionysius—about 35 times—
162 book two

then for their own sakes. Yielding to the rabble and the pleas, he left* the statues1218 and
armies1219 in Ptolemais 193 while he went ahead into Galilee,1220 summoned both the rabble
and all the notables1221 to Tiberias,1222 and explained the power of [the] Romans1223 as well
as the threats of Caesar.1224 He further demonstrated that their petition was senseless: 194
for with all the subject nations1225 having set up the images of Caesar1226 in each city along
with their other gods, the fact that they [the Judeans] alone were opposed to this1227 was

e.g., Ant. rom. 1.46.4; 2.30.4, 34.2, 35.6, 50.6; 4.11.5, nection with the wall obstructing Agrippa II’s view of
25.4, 50.4. Josephus exploits the formula more than the temple [Ant. 20.189-94], and of the Iulius Archelaus
most, using it some 105 times, about 25 of these in War who would be among the friends to receive a copy of
(1.97; 2.192, 198, 307, 395, 400, 475; 3.113, 261; 4.71, Josephus’ War [Apion 1.51-52]; Kokkinos 1998: 197),
79; 6.351, 384; 7.228, 321, 362, 380, 382, 385, 386, 391, and the other powerful men of that (Herodian) family, as
393). Note especially the concentration of references in well as the principal men of Tiberias. That notice lends
the Masada narrative, where tragic sorrow abounds. support to Kokkinos’ point (1998: 196) that members
1216
Whereas Josephus uses the verb ἱκετεύω about of the Herodian dynasty (much more than the priest-
100 times, this intensified form (καθικετεύω) occurs hood) still constituted the heart of the native élite in
only 4 times in his corpus (also 4.640; Ant. 5.302; this period, and so fulfilled their role of representing the
19.234). people’s grievances to the Roman authorities in order to
1217
For this key phrase in Josephus, οἱ πάτριοι νόµοι, maintain calm.
1222
see the note at 2.6. See note at 2.168.
1218 1223
Only this account has more than one statue (cf. The “power of the Romans” (ἡ Ῥωµαίων δύναµις)
2.185). It differs from the others also in implying that is a prominent theme in Josephus, the one expression
Petronius is bringing “the statues” with him, whereas conveniently signifying both their abstract power (some-
Philo makes it particularly clear that he has only ordered times accompanied by their “fortune”: War 2.373, 384;
the construction of a colossal statue in Sidon (Legat. Ant. 12.414; 16.401; 20.70-71; Life 175; cf. War 6.399)
221-22). and its concrete manifestation in military “forces” (e.g.,
1219
I follow MSS PAM in reading the plural; the other War 2.357; 7.275; Life 285, 378).
1224
MSS have a singular. The combination of threats and the power to
1220
Philo’s account knows nothing of the consultations enforce them should be enough to bring ordinary sub-
in Tiberias, placing all encounters in Phoenicia, whereas jects—except those quite willing to die—into line. Con-
in the parallel (Ant. 18.264-72) Josephus will consider- spicuously absent from Petronius’ case (reprised at 2.199)
ably elaborate on the Ptolemais/Tiberias distinction. are any claim of justice, law, or morality behind Gaius’
1221
Josephus will repeat the distinction between plan and any hint of the legate’s personal investment or
the rabble and the eminent (here τὸ τε πλῆθος καὶ οἱ requirement. Josephus presents him as a sympathetic,
γνώριµοι), which ancient audiences would immediately wise, and ironic character, caught in the realities of the
recognize (and which should help them see the Judeans power he represents.
1225
as part of civilized society), at 2.199. The point seems This appeal to other subject peoples anticipates
to be that a respectable Roman official such as Petronius the speech of Agrippa II (2.357-401): even formerly
respects the social distinctions within Judean society, and mighty states must now find ways of cooperating with
treats the élite quite differently from the masses (cf. also Rome, and Judeans need to do the same.
1226
Quadratus’ actions at 2.241-43). The former, being men This phrase (Καίσαρος εἰκόνας) recalls the Pilate
somewhat like himself, need to be won over through episode at 2.169, 173, another clear effort at binding
reasoned discussion. Contrast the behavior of the eques- these episodes together. The noun “images” reoccurs
trian governors dispatched to Judea, who generally fail at 2.197.
1227
to make this distinction and treat the entire nation as This condensed analysis of Judean exceptional-
alien and contemptible, Florus even crucifying men of ism, placed in Petronius’ mouth, closely matches that
equestrian rank (2.308; cf. 2.171-74, 176-77, 224-27, of Apion, speaking for the Alexandrian delegation to
270 [partial exception], 274-76). Gaius (which started the whole initiative) according to
The parallel at Ant. 18.273 names Aristobulus (II: Ant. 18.258: whereas all those subject to Roman rule
son of Herod’s son Aristobulus, d. 8/7 BCE, and brother set up altars and temples to Gaius, and in all respects
of Agrippa I, similarly raised in Rome; Kokkinos 1998: welcome him as they do their own Gods, the Judeans
314-16), Helcias/Hilkiah “the Great” (=Alexas III, grand- alone consider it improper to honor him with statues
son of Herod’s sister Salome and third husband Alexas, and swear by his name. This interpretation is the precise
father of both the Helcias who would visit Rome in con- opposite of that given by Philo (Legat. 114-18), accord-
book two 163

tantamount to being in rebellion1228—with insolence besides.1229

(10.4) 195 But while they were putting forward1230 the law and the ancestral custom,1231
and how it would not be lawful1232 to place any representation1233 of God—let alone of a
man—in the shrine itself or even in some ordinary1234 place in the countryside,1235 Petro-
nius seized upon [this] and declared,1236 “But surely also in my case, is not the law of my
master to be guarded? For after transgressing it and sparing you, I shall rightly perish.
The one who sent me,1237 and not I, will make war with you; I myself, just like you, am
under orders.”1238 196 At this, the rabble shouted that they held themselves ready to suf-

ing to which the rest of the world flattered Gaius, some and at different periods; see note to “trampled” at 2.170.
Romans even abandoning their own ancestral dignity and The adjective θέµιτος (“lawful”) and its negative form
freedom by introducing the foreign practice of prostra- occur 12 times in War 1-6, but only 3 times in the much
tion (ἡ προσκύνησις), whereas the Judeans alone had longer Antiquities, which more obviously concerns the
the death-defying courage to oppose him. Both Philo laws (and 3 times in Life and Apion). In all but 2 of
and Josephus (see note to “trampled” at 2.170) relish Josephus’ 18 uses, the adjective is negated either with
the chance to dwell on what was apparently the most α-privative (most common) or with οὐ or µὴ as here
admired of Judean peculiarities: their imageless concep- (οὐδέ). Two earlier occurrences of ἀθέµιτος in War have
tion of God. to do with Herod’s unlawful golden eagle (1.650, 659).
1228 1233
Greek σχεδὸν ἀφισταµένων. By withholding any This rare word (δείκηλον) occurs elsewhere in
hint of criticism or alternative response (unless Gaius Josephus only in the recent episode concerning Pilate
can be dissuaded), Josephus continues to build a compel- and the images (2.170; see note there); its repetition
ling case for the necessity of revolt less than 3 decades helps to bind these two stories together. The main exam-
later—in popular sentiment, which would (when fanned ples before Josephus, outside of fragments: Herodotus
by demagogues) make the war inevitable. 2.171; Lycophron 1179, 1259; Apollonius of Rhodes,
1229
“Insolence” here (ὕβρις) is cognate to the verb Arg. 1.746; 4.1672.
1234
rendered “abused” at 2.184 (ἐξυβρίζω), where Gaius Or “useless”; see the note to this word at 2.191—
was the subject. Thus Josephus constructs a compel- the proximity illustrating Josephus’ habit of using words
ling rhetorical balance: he has narrator has accused the in clusters, often in quite different contexts.
1235
emperor of insolence, whereas the Roman governor must These elaborations of the law against cut images
necessarily see Judean non-compliance as insolence. (see note at 2.170) are a fortiori appeals, though in
1230
Greek προτείνω, here in a metaphorical sense: reverse of the standard order. Thus: the law covers
“appealing to” as the basis for an argument or claim. images even of humans, and even in the countryside
Contrast Petronius’ rhetorical posture (2.199): brandish- (i.e., it is general and unrestricted): How much more
ing in a threatening way (ἐπανατείνω) the power of does it prohibit an attempt at divine representation, and
Rome. MSS LVRC have the aorist participle, suggest- in the very temple?
1236
ing that Petronius waited until the Judeans were finished Ant. 18.265-68 has Petronius voice these senti-
their appeal. The present participle (with MSS PAM), ments while still dealing with the Judeans in Ptolemais,
translated here, rather gives the sense that he cut them before his trip to Tiberias.
1237
off with his counter-appeal to the compelling dictates I.e., Gaius and his imperial forces. This notice
of Caesar. provides a reverse example of Agrippa’s claim that the
1231
This concern helps to bond the episode with the bad governors in Judea were not sent knowingly by Cae-
recent story of Pilate’s images: see the note to “ancestral sar (2.352).
1238
[customs]” at 2.171. Law and custom (νόµος καὶ ἔθος) This sympathetic Roman official expresses himself
form a regular pair in Josephus, along with several other much as the centurion of Luke 7:8 (εἰµι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν
related terms (τὰ πάτρια, τὰ νόµιµα, οἱ πάτριοι νόµοι, τασσόµενος). Here Josephus effectively uses oratio recta
etc.): such general categories were familiar to his audi- for Petronius, to make vivid the psychology and internal
ences from their own cultures (cf. Latin mos maiorum) struggle of this individual at this time and place—a dis-
and they are often interchangeable in his narratives, or tinguished Roman, determined to rule well but faced with
susceptible of different combinations. See the note to demands by an absolute master, hosts an internal moral
“ancestral laws” at 2.6 and Mason 1991: 96-106. deliberation (and does not simply command the people
1232
Although the reference is to the 2nd commandment to do as he says, unlike Pilate). When he describes the
(Exod 20:4-6), the Bible does not spell out the prohibi- ongoing, collective (and equally moving) commitment of
tion as Josephus does, and it seems that the prohibition the masses to the laws, Josephus turns to oratio obliqua.
of images was interpreted differently by different groups
164 book two

fer everything for the sake of the law. After he had quelled their outburst, Petronius said,
“Will you, then, make war on Caesar?”1239 197 The Judeans declared that they offered
sacrifice twice a day for Caesar and the Roman people,1240 “but if he wants to set up the
images, he will need first to offer up as a sacrifice1241 the entire nation of Judeans”—and
they were presenting themselves ready for the butchery,1242 children and wives included.1243

1239
Petronius’ question is programmatic for the entire cult from Judea became increasingly conspicuous and a
War. In many ways, obvious and subtle, Josephus returns matter of concern to Augustus, who had never exempted
to the irresistible power of the Romans and their prin- the Judeans from the expectation of imperial cult and had
ceps—the basic fact for all statesmen in the Mediter- never supported the Jerusalem sacrifice as a substitute,
ranean basin since the time of Polybius. Making war on much less contributed to it (194-97); that Caligula was
Rome would be madness. Agrippa II will ask much the only the clearest exponent of a general demand from the
same question as part of his point that it would be unwise ruling side (293-94); and that the unsatisfied expecta-
to respond to local humiliations with a war on Caesar tion of imperial cult was (on both Roman and Judean
and Rome itself (2.350-57). Here, however, Gaius Caesar sides) a major factor in the tensions that led to war. The
is the culprit, and with passages such as these Josephus problems with this ambitious reconstruction include: (a)
relentlessly builds a case for the seeming inevitability its need to reject the plain and detailed statements of
of war. In this tension between knowing about Roman contemporaries, Philo and Josephus, on the acceptability
invincibility and being forced to fight anyway (e.g., the of the Jerusalem sacrifice; (b) the absence of evidence in
predicament of Ananus at 4.320) lies the tragedy of the Judean or early Christian literature that imperial cult was
war and of Jerusalem (cf. War 1.7-12). a significant cause of rebellion in Judea; and (c) the con-
1240
This notice plants the seed for a major episode siderable literature on imperial cult, which tends to high-
later in War 2 (2.409-10): Eleazar son of Ananias will light its diversity and ambiguities (Habicht 1970; Price
persuade those conducting the temple service to stop 1980, 2004a, b; Gradel 2002), in keeping with the gen-
accepting sacrifices from foreigners—thus ending, Jose- eral emphasis on the diverse “periphery” of the empire
phus explains, the traditional daily sacrifice on behalf of and the need for statesmanship and consensus on both
Rome and the emperor, and laying a foundation for war. sides (Millar 1977; Lendon 1997; Ando 2000; Meyer-
According to Philo (Legat. 157, 317, 357), Augustus Zwiffelhoffer 2002), which the arrangement described
expressed his reverence for the imageless God of the by Philo and Josephus appears to fit.
1241
Judeans and his respect for the temple—being unable to The verb προθύω (only here and at 1.371 in Jose-
donate an image in the usual fashion (Smallwood 1961: phus), coming soon after θύω in the same sentence, indi-
311)—by initiating a daily sacrifice of two lambs and a cates a word play. Gaius intended that his statue, as of a
bull at his own expense. Although Apion 2.77 (see Bar- God, would become the object of sacrifice. The Judeans
clay’s note ad loc. in BJP 10) indicates that the Judeans declare, in effect: If he wants a sacrifice before his statue,
bore the expense, it is easy enough to reconcile the he will need to sacrifice the entire nation first (and this
claims, each serving its author’s needs, if for example the is an outrageous demand, since we already sacrifice to
costs came from tribute money after 6 CE (Smallwood God for his and the Romans’ welfare). The image of
1961: 241). Bernett (2007: 194-97) dismisses the notion Judeans as sacrifical victims (rather than as sacrificers
that Augustus sponsored this offering (further below). of animal victims to Gaius) recalls 2.10-4, 30 and paral-
Josephus’ description of the sacrifice as for Caesar lels Luke 13:1 (re: Pilate), on the confusion of human
and the Roman people, matched by the later reference with animal victims. An additional irony is that coins
to it (2.409 see note there), recalls the cult of “Rome and other images related to the imperial cult most often
and Augustus” that was well established in gentile cit- present the emperor and his family as chief sacrificers
ies, including Herod’s foundations at Sebaste and the (on behalf of the world) to the Gods, rather than simply
Caesareas Maritima and Philippi (at Panias). as objects of sacrifice as Gods without further ado (cf.
Bernett (2007) offers a comprehensive challenge Price 1980, 1984a); Caligula should have been satisfied
to the scholarly consensus with her argument: that with sacrifices for his well being—as Trajan would be
soon after Actium, Herod, like his neighbors (esp. in (Pliny, Ep. 10.100).
1242
Asia Minor), understood the necessity of offering cult As at 2.30 (see “savagely butchered” and note
to Augustus and the imperial family (hence the large there), Josephus artfully connects the language of ani-
temples at Sebaste, Panias, and Caesarea); that he was mal sacrifice with that of human slaughter (σφαγή), also
uniquely able to balance such facilities for imperial cult construed as sacrifice, since the victims would die for
with attention to Judean traditions (e.g., in rebuilding holy purposes.
the temple); that with his death in 4 BCE the failure of Whereas Josephus presents the Judeans as passive
book two 165

198 Amazement and compassion1244 went into Petronius1245 at these [words], both for the
insuperable devotion1246 of the men1247 and for their ready, ecstatic disposition1248 toward
death. Unsuccessful1249 for the time being, they were dismissed.1250
(10.5) 199 On the succeeding [days], calling meetings with the powerful men in private
and with the rabble in public,1251 although sometimes he would appeal and sometimes he

1247
and ready to be killed if necessary (as also in the Pilate Josephus’ underscoring of the males’ (τῶν ἀνδρῶν)
episodes above), Tacitus’ brief note (Hist. 5.9) claims that concern for the deity fits with his overall emphasis on the
Gaius’ provocation elicited armed opposition. Smallwood manly virtue of the Judeans, recently stressed in describ-
(1961: 275) argues that, although Josephus—who agrees ing the all-male Essenes (2.119-59). Perhaps the males
with Philo in this respect—might have had reasons to are also singled out because their willingness to sacrifice
play down Judean militancy, it is easier to imagine that also their own wives and children is part of the reason
Tacitus has erroneously assumed armed resistance, in for Petronius’ “pity.”
1248
light of the later war. Since, however, Josephus does not Judean contempt for death is a prominent theme
exclude resistance (but plausibly predicts slaughter if in War: see Introduction and notes at 2.151. Josephus’
it comes to a stand-off), and since armed opposition to language here (ἑτοίµου παραστήµατος) has a studied
Gaius’ madness could hardly have been objectionable at ambiguity, reflecting the legate’s viewpoint. The noun
Josephus’ time of writing, and given the literary artistry is a Hellenistic construction, first attested in Diodorus’
on all sides, it seems impossible to gain any purchase admiring portrait of the daring Thebans confronting
on what actually happened. Alexander’s Macedonians (17.11.4; cf. 17.21.6): there
1243
See note to “women and children” at 2.192. it is paired with “soul” (ψυχῆς) to suggest a reaching
Whereas Josephus gives this declaration to the Judeans beyond oneself to exceed the normal limits of courage,
gathered in Tiberias, Philo has those who crowd “Phoe- or self-transcendence. This noun is a key word in War
nicia” elaborate on the same point: at Legat. 234-36 they 1-6, where Josephus uses it a remarkable 16 times, about
offer to kill themselves along with women and children, half the time with “soul” as in Diodorus (War 1.59, 74;
rather than suffer the planned sacrilege. 2.198, 476, 580, 588; 3.175; 4.34, 193; 5.63, 90, 324;
1244
Or “astonishment/surprise and pity” (θαῦµα καὶ 6.13, 52, 62, 81). It does not appear in his later works,
οἴκτος). Ps-Hermogenes (3rd cent. CE?), in his work on and before his time it occurs rarely in literature (Diodo-
the Forceful Method (Dein. 36.8-22), claims that whereas rus as above; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.39.2; Demosth. 22;
the essence of comedy is the interweaving of the laugh- Philo, Mos. 2.172, 197, 273; Spec. 1.57). Even after
able with the pointed or barbed, tragedy interweaves pity/ Josephus, no known author will favor the word as War
compassion and amazement (οἴκτος καὶ θαῦµα). This does. Especially without the “soul” complement, as here,
is clear not only from tragedies, he says, but also from the noun has an incomplete sense: it is neither pejora-
Homer’s epics (Plato having made Homer the father of tive nor laudatory, but more descriptive of an amazing
tragedy), which abound in pity and amazement. This transcendence. As this high Roman official observes the
pair is a variation on Aristotle’s more famous prescrip- remarkable determination of the natives, he may (in the
tion of pity and fear (cf. Ant. 1.176) as the heart of story) feel both admiration and annoyance.
1249
tragedy, though his word for pity/compassion is ἔλεος This adjective (ἄπρακτοι) sustains the ambiguity:
(Poet. 1449b, 1452b, 1453a-b, 1456b). “Compassion” it could mean that the Judeans left “intractable, unyield-
and “pity” are Leitmotifs of War (see 1.12 and note), ing.” Yet parallel occurrences of similar phrases in Jose-
which is in many respects a “tragic history” (see Intro- phus (Ant. 15.349; 16.293; 20.129), esp. at 2.233 below,
duction). suggest the sense given here. The larger construction
1245
This expression (οἶκτος εἰσῄει τὸν X) occurs sev- (with διαλύω) may derive from Thucydides (1.24.7;
eral times in War (1.58; 6.182; 7.338) and is paralleled 2.59.2; 4.99.1).
1250
at 2.400 with εἰσέρχοµαι. Or “disbanded, adjourned” (διελύθησαν); cf.
1246
Or “cult, ritual, worship.” Like the purity of 2.238.
1251
δεισιδαιµονία that overcame Pilate at 2.174 (in con- Josephus repeats here the distinction made at 2.193
nection with the same issue of images), the unconquer- between the mob (τὸ πλῆθος) and the notable, eminent,
able—or stubborn (ἀνυπέρβλητος)—θρησκεία that powerful men (there οἱ γνώριµοι; here οἱ δυνατοί). See
astonishes Petronius here can be understood as either the note to “notables” there, and compare the differenti-
virtuous or contemptible: either cultus/ritual/worship or ated appeals of the chief priests at 3.222. Every ancient
vain superstitious practice. Josephus leaves Petronius’ society had such an élite class. Shaw (1993, 1995) argues
assessment artfully ambiguous, especially through the that Josephus was caught between two constructions of
evocation of both amazement and pity (2.198). power: the old Mediterranean kind based on powerful
166 book two

would advise, most often he would forcefully threaten,1252 brandishing1253 the might of
Petronius’ the Romans1254 and Gaius’ angry desires1255 as well as his own compulsion1256 in these
descision to [matters]. 200 Since they were not giving in to a single attempt of his, and as he saw
refuse Gaius.
Ant. 18.276
also the countryside in danger of remaining unsown,1257 for it was time for sowing1258 and

autonomous men and the institutionalized Roman sort, 2.324—ironic reversal]). This motif of rebel methods
in which the older kind had been to some extent formal- in turn feeds into the larger problem in the War of the
ized in civic offices and social structures. The irony, well meaning of “freedom” and “slavery,” and the recurring
known to Josephus and his contemporaries (cf. Plutarch’s paradox that those who rebel against Rome on the pre-
Advice to the Statesman), was that the “powerful men” of text of freedom are in fact the first to compel their own
an eastern city such as Jerusalem were in fact severely people, tyrant-like, to behave in ways they do not choose
constrained by representatives of the Roman regime such (4.236-344; cf. Life 42).
as Petronius. Polybius had reflected much on the theme of the
1252
Alternating between persuasion and (the threat of) political necessity facing Greek statesmen in the face
force is a rhetorical commonplace, also characteristic of of Roman power (Eckstein 1995: 194-236): they were
Josephus’ narratives: see the note to “force” at 2.8. compelled to find a modus vivendi with the superpower.
1253
The double-prefixed verb that Josephus uses here Josephus can sound the same theme as a principle of
(middle of ἐπανατείνω), which suggests a vivid holding statecraft under Roman hegemony (1.3, 322; 2.1, and
of something up and over someone else, or brandishing the speech of Agrippa II [2.345-404], without featuring
it aggressively, contrasts markedly with the προτείνω this word), but writing after the obvious fact of the war
(put forward, in argument) that he uses of the Judeans he can also turn the moral-political code on its head by
at 2.195. The care with which he chooses his words is insisting that intolerable local Roman government (War
indicated by the fact that this form appears only 3 times 2.352) and resulting popular sentiment compelled the
in Josephus (also 3.360; Ant. 2.272), and rarely before Judeans to fight (Life 27). At War 4.320, the murdered
his time outside of Philo, where it appears a remark- high priest Ananus is said to have known that Rome
able 23 times (cf. also Xenophon, Cyr. 2.1.23; Polybius could not be fought and yet he prosecuted the war out
2.44.3; 15.29.14; Diodorus 32.6.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. of necessity (ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης).
1257
6.48.3; Comp. verb. 5.55). Contrast Philo, Legat. 248-49: the crops were
1254
This phrase (ἡ Ῥωµαίων ἰσχύς) is characteris- ripe and ready for harvest, and Petronius feared that the
tic of War (1.135 [programmatically]; 2.371, 387, 577; Judeans would destroy them if pushed; see next note.
3.31; 5.343, 364; 6.159; 7.203). Before Josephus it is According to Ant. 18.273-74, it was the Herodian nota-
found, though not formulaically, in Dionysius (Ant. rom. bles in Tiberias who pointed out that if Petronius contin-
2.36.3; 3.23.11; 8.9.3); for usage similar to Josephus’ see ued with Gaius’ plan, the land would remain unsown.
1258
Appian, Illyr. 38; Bell. civ. 2.21.150. Josephus’ two narratives are consistent in dating
1255
Or simply “tempers.” This compelling pair—the Petronius’ arrival in Ptolemais to the autumn (of 39): get-
emperor’s designs and the unstoppable might of his forc- ting the statue erected was an essential part of his brief
es—reprises the opening summary of Petronius’ case at in assuming the legateship in that year (2.184-85; Ant.
2.193: the power of Rome and the threats of Caesar. 18.261); the legions are to winter in Ptolemais before
1256
Petronius’ ἀνάγκη (“necessity, compulsion”) the execution of this order in Jerusalem (Ant. 18.269);
puts him in the same category as other statesmen (such heavy rains break out at the end of negotiations (Ant.
as Josephus, 2.562, and Ananus, 4.320)—all of them 18.285-86); winter storms will delay Gaius’ return letter
attached to moral duty. The language highlights the to Petronius (2.203 below); and it is now the time for
legate’s complete detachment from any personal pref- sowing seed (cf. Ant. 18.274-74). Smallwood (1981: 177
erences. The “necessity” word group is important for n. 115) argues, however, that Josephus must be mistaken:
Josephus: he uses it about 370 times, in many contexts since Philo was not only a contemporary, but was in
and with various nuances. In addition to the various Rome in the year 40 when he heard of this crisis, we
pedestrian uses, he employs this word group in relation must prefer his claim (Legat. 249, 257) that Petronius’
to the law of Moses and its demands, the dictates of meeting with Judeans in Ptolemais occurred at grain-
piety, and the constraints upon a historian (2.73; Life harvest time—i.e., late spring (of 40), which Josephus
161, 291). Most striking are those cases where he plays might have confused with a spring sowing time; since
off necessity against choice: one does something from Gaius died in January 41, the winter storms that affected
necessity and not from choice; or some rebel leaders, his letter would have been in winter 40/41. (On the agri-
where they encounter compatriots who do not choose cultural issues, see Sperber 1978; Safrai 1994: 104-84;
to follow them, use compulsion instead (War 2.562 [cf. Pastor 1997.)
book two 167

the masses were idly spending fifty days1259 with him, he finally assembled them, saying:
201 “It is rather for me to face the risk.1260 Either, with the God collaborating,1261 I shall
persuade Caesar and happily be saved along with you, or, upon his becoming provoked,1262
I shall readily give up my own life for the sake of so many.”1263 He dismissed the rabble,
who were praying fervently1264 for him, and, taking the army from Ptolemais, he returned
to Antiocheia.1265
202 From there he immediately sent a message to Caesar about his own foray into
Judea and the pleas of the nation, and [said] that, unless he wished to destroy also the
countryside in addition to its men, it would be necessary to protect their law1266 and re-

The dilemma, then, is whether to reject the detailed the referent open: a particular deity in his pantheon, the
and incidentally consistent report of Josephus or the con- category of the deity in general, and/or the Judean God.
temporary and even more detailed account of Philo. As A similar ambiguity will attend Titus’ climactic obser-
a function of his source-critical treatment of Agrippa I’s vations at 6.411: “It was indeed together with (a) God
career, D. R. Schwartz (1990: 77-89) proposes a solu- that we made war (σὺν θεῷ γε ἐπολεµήσαµεν), and it
tion that gives full weight to both accounts: Petronius was (a) God who brought the Judeans down from even
brings his army to Ptolemais for the winter of 39/40; these defenses.”
1262
the Judeans demonstrate massively in the spring of 40 On the verb, see the note at 2.8. If we judge from
and Petronius writes a first, diplomatic letter to Gaius the parallel genitive absolutes here, it would seem that
planning delay, and citing concern for the spring harvest it is God who will either collaborate with the legate or
(ca. May, 40); Gaius replies moderately (ca. August); become annoyed with him, in either case dictating his
Petronius heads to Tiberias, where he encounters the fate. It is possible, however, that Josephus intends Gaius
month-and-a-half strike mentioned here (threatening the in the second clause.
1263
autumn sowing) and writes more forthrightly to Gaius This is a remarkable statement from a Roman
(ca. October/November, 40); Gaius receives this and legatus, whose main responsibility was to execute the
replies angrily in December/January, but dies soon after- wishes of the princeps and administer the province as
wards. Agrippa’s intervention fell in the final few months its master wished. He would be dying not so much for
(September to December, 40). The solution is elegant and the Judean laws (a rather novelistic prospect) as to spare
plausible, even without the specific source-critical pro- the many lives that would be pointlessly lost, on both
posals offered by Schwartz (e.g., that Josephus depends sides of a conflict. Although unparalleled, it seems, this
on Philo’s Legatio and its lost continuation, abbreviating would not seem to be an entirely implausible motive for
Philo and correcting from a lost Life of Agrippa). See a distinguished senator facing the insane and dangerous
also Pastor 1997: 150-51 and notes. policy of a young princeps.
1259 1264
The parallel at Ant. 18.272 specifies (a biblical) 40 This is the only occurrence of κατεύχοµαι in War
days of supplication. It is a curious index of his desire (otherwise, 4 occurrences in the biblical paraphrase of
to change his stories in the retelling that Antiquities/Life Ant. 1-11).
1265
normally changes numbers given in War for the same epi- See the note at 2.18. Petronius thus unilaterally
sodes. Although MS-transmission problems may account concludes the mission he began at 2.186, leading his
for some of the discrepancies, they are so widespread legions on the long march back up the coastal highway.
that this is an unlikely explanation for most. This heightens the suspense dramatically, since this obvi-
1260
This is the only occurrence of the adjective ously meant that the legate no longer had any intention
παρακινδυνευτέον in Josephus, and before his time it of fulfilling Gaius’ order, no matter what the outcome of
seems to appear in literature only in Dionysius, Ant. rom. his further correspondence.
1266
9.57.5. Possibly its gerundive force is meant to evoke the The metaphorical language of observing, pre-
Roman Petronius’ way of speaking in Latin. serving, or cherishing the law(s) (τοὺς νόµους [δια]
1261
An ironic observation: Petronius cleanly distin- φυλάττειν) is Platonic (Pol. 292a; Leg. 626b, 769e, 951b)
guishes “the God” from “the Caesar,” but the latter (the and also common among the Athenian orators (Isocrates,
legate’s current master) has insisted on his own divini- Nic. 56; Pac. 102; Antid. 293; Demosthenes, Mid. 177;
ty—the claim that initiated this episode (2.184). Petro- Aristog. 1.45; cf. Xeonophon, Hell. 1.7.29). Closer to
nius thus allies himself with the subject people against Josephus’ time, Dionysius uses the phrase in charged
his own ruler. Josephus continues his use of ambiguous ways (Ant. rom. 1.34.4; 2.73.2; 4.36.2; 10.55.4), as does
language in portraying Petronius. Although the distin- Philo a couple of times (Mos. 2.19; Quaest. Exod. 2.19).
guished legate can hardly be made into a Judean parti- Such language is characteristic of Josephus’ lexicon, as
san, his reference to “the God” (or simply “God”) leaves we see especially in the final quarter of the Apion: Ant.
168 book two

Death of Gaius lax the order. 203 To these letters Gaius wrote back, not1267 very moderately, threatening
Caligula death to Petronius1268 because he was becoming a slow executor of his orders.1269 But it
happened that, whereas the couriers with these [letters] were subjected to winter storms1270
on the sea for three months, others reporting Gaius’ death had smooth sailing. At any
rate, Petronius received the letters about these matters twenty-seven days earlier than the
ones against himself.1271
Claudius chosen (11.1) 2041272 After Gaius had held the imperium for three years and eight months1273 and
by praetorians. been murdered in a plot,1274 Claudius was seized*1275 by the military units1276 in Rome.1277
Ant. 19.162,
212, 225

7.338, 384; 11.156; Apion 1.60; 2.184, 227, 272. There are problems, however, with all such proposals.
1267
MSS PA omit the negative, though it seems neces- First, Antiquities 13-20/Life is simply much fuller than
sary, and the others have it. That leaves of the problem War 1-2: the extra material had to come from somewhere,
of explaining MSS PA, however. It is conceivable that is almost always different from (and often contradictory
Josephus wrote without the negative, sarcastically (or of) War , and cannot reasonably be explained in general
even intending to describe a restraint of style), in which by different sources or political allegiances. Second, both
case PA are correct and the majority reading would be Claudius and Agrippa appear in very positive colors in
easy to understand as an effort at “correction.” both passages, and Agrippa’s role, though necessarily
1268
Ant. 18.304 purports to quote from the letter, smaller in War, is still crucial (as the story folds into
ordering Petronius to become his own judge and assess his career). Finally, Josephus’ support of Agrippa II is
what penalty he should pay (presumably suicide) for already clear as he writes War (e.g., 2.344-407; cf. Life
having drawn Caesar’s wrath on himself. 362-67). It seems difficult, perhaps impossible, to find
1269
Philo (Legat. 248-337) offers a much more elabo- secure grounds for anything more than speculation about
rate account, describing Petronius’ crafty letter, Gaius’ Josephus’ sources here. For historical reconstruction of
outraged initial response and more cautious actual reply, the events that also isolates outstanding problems, see
Agrippa’s coincidental intervention with his own letter to Levick 2001: 29-39.
1273
Gaius, Gaius’ temporary relaxation of the order, and his Ant. 19.201 puts it “having exercised imperium
final decision to go ahead with a new statue—leaving the for 4 years, except for 4 months.” Suetonius (Cal. 59.1)
outcome unspecified at the close of that work. gives 3 years, 10 months, and 8 days, evidently count-
1270
This notice fits with Josephus’ consistent setting ing from Tiberius’ death (March 16, 37 CE) to Gaius’
of the story in the autumn, beginning at the time of assassination on January 24, 41; Cassius Dio makes it 10
sowing (2.200), and with the claim in Ant. 18.269 that days shorter (59.30.1). As we have seen (notes to “son
Petronius wintered his legions in Ptolemais. But Philo of Iulia” at 2.168, to “Caesar” at 2.181), accession in the
claims that this episode occurred in the spring; see notes early principate—since there was no definitive point at
to “unsown” and “sowing” at 2.200. which the ruler was “crowned” emperor or the like, but
1271
Ant. 18.305-9 expatiates on Petronius’ reaction to his power emerged from the granting of several extraor-
this providential coincidence (συντυχία) and the swift- dinary powers—could be counted from different points.
ness of divine retribution against Gaius. Kienast (1996) gives Gaius’ accession date as March
1272
The following brief story of Claudius’ accession 18, when the Senate proclaimed him Augustus, whereas
(2.204-14) has a much more elaborate counterpart in Barrett (1989: 71-72) adduces evidence that April 21
Ant. 19.114-273, which reports in detail the debates of (date of the lex imperii from the popular comitia) was
the Senate, the crucial and clever maneuvers of Agrippa, the crucial date. That would split the difference between
and the deaths of the anti-Claudian leaders (Chaerea and Suetonius and Josephus.
1274
Lupus). Given the different emphases, with the Antiqui- In War Josephus reserves the compound noun
ties account giving much more space to Agrippa I’s activ- δολοφονέω (“murder” + “bait, trick, cunning, deceit”)
ities, scholars have often discussed Josephus’ sources in for Roman political murders, which typically result from
each case. Whereas Scramuzza (1940: 58) supposed that conspiracy: Sextus Caesar at 1.216, Galba at 4.494. His
the present passage came from a Jewish-Judean source, casual reference here assumes his Roman audience’s
Sordi (1993: 215-16) proposes the 8-volume autobiog- familiarity with the death of this infamous princeps;
raphy of Claudius mentioned by Suetonius (Claud. 41); contrast the extraordinary detail of Ant. 19.14-113 (or
cf. Galimberti 2001: 196. Levick (2001: 192-93) con- to 19.211, to include the murder of Gaius’ family and
siders the accounts “illuminatingly divergent,” holding Josephus’ obituary), where he will use the story to illus-
that War’s reflects Flavian efforts to rehabilitate Clau- trate that work’s constitutional and moral themes (Ant.
dius, whereas the Antiquities parallel was written under 19.15-16). For analysis, see Wiseman 1991; Galimberti
Agrippa II’s guidance (flattering his father). 2001: 183-93; D. R. Schwartz in BJP 8 (in preparation).
book two 169

205 The Senate,1278 the consuls Sentius Saturninus1279 and Pomponius Secundus1280 so

Gaius was murdered by a group led by Cassius Chaerea, edly gave both the Guard and the legions a huge donative
a tribune of the Praetorian Guard, who apparently had (Josephus says 5,000 denarii [Ant. 19.247]; Suetonius
personal grievances against the princeps (Barrett 1989: has 15,000 HS [= 3,750 denarii; Claud. 10]), in return
161); Suetonius, Cal. 58. for their oath of personal allegiance. On imperial dona-
1275
Ant. 19.216-20: a soldier named Gratus found tives to secure military support, see note to “profits” at
Claudius in hiding, identified him as “a Germanicus” War 1.5.
1277
(the family title inherited from Nero Drusus, and made All the MSS except P add here εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν
beloved by the heroic general, Gaius’ father and Clau- (“for the rule”). Without that clarification the audience
dius’ brother, who had died in 19 CE), and took him might suppose that the soldiers in question were hostile
with the other soldiers to make him princeps; similarly to Claudius and intended harm, like those who will be
Suetonius, Claud. 10. enlisted against him in the next sentence. But the sequel
1276
The units (στρατεύµατα) in question were the (2.207) shows that these soldiers seized Claudius against
only substantial, highly trained forces permitted in the his will in order to install him as princeps. The very
city of Rome: the cohorts of the Praetorian Guard. helpfulness of the added phrase, along with its absence
(Other units in Rome were the German bodyguard of from one of the best MSS for War , makes it suspect. It
the princeps, 3 urban cohorts, who mainly kept order in is more difficult to imagine that Josephus wrote it and
the city [below], and the 7,000 vigiles, who combined the copyist of P had some reason for omitting it than it is
firefighting and policing duties). At Ant. 19.214 Josephus to imagine that Josephus (followed by P) did not include
calls the Guard (τὸ στρατηγικόν) the purest or clean- it, but the other MSS supplied it. Josephus’ intention
est element (καθαρώτατον) of the army, perhaps refer- in omitting any such explanation at this point may be
ring to their superior skill, possibly indicating a relative suggested by the parallel (Ant. 19.218-19), according
immunity to purchase of their loyalty. The Guard was an to which Claudius himself thought he was being seized
élite force with higher pay, better chances of promotion, for violent purposes. Especially if Josephus was com-
and a shorter and lighter term of service than legionaries. pressing such a longer story when he wrote the concise
In 27 BCE Augustus had established this force, compris- version here, it is reasonable that he would have first
ing 9 cohorts of 500 men each, as a bodyguard under tried to build suspense by not explaining why Claudius
his direct control: 3 cohorts were stationed around the was “seized” by the soldiers. Certainty is not possible,
city, 6 in the surrounding countryside (Suetonius, Aug. however: the copyist of P might have carelessly read or
1.49). In 2 BCE he gave control of the Guard to two misunderstood the story and so removed the phrase.
1278
equestrian praefecti praetorio. Under Tiberius, the noto- Although the adjective σύγκλητος means [some-
rious L. Aelius Seianus became sole Prefect and moved thing] “called together,” Josephus expects his audience
the entire force to a single barracks outside the Viminal to know this feminine substantive (ἡ σύγκλητος) as the
Gate (cf. Suetonius, Tib. 37). standard equivalent of Latin senatus (i.e., roughly cap-
The power that Seianus acquired proved the impor- turing patres conscripti—a traditional description of the
tance of this force for all future rulers. Shortly before Senate’s membership), and he reserves the word for this
the story time here, Gaius had increased the strength of purpose (using it some 61 times)—even providing the
the Guard to 12 cohorts (6,000 men). Because of their derivative συγκλητικός for one of senatorial rank (Ant.
support for Otho in 69 CE, Vitellius would replace the 14.210; 19.3, 32, etc.). In War, 5 of the word’s 12 appear-
force with his own Guard, now comprising 16 cohorts ances appear in this story of Claudius’ accession.
1279
of 1,000 men each, but one of Vespasian’s “Augustan” Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus (Ant. 19.166) was
reforms was to return them to their original strength of a distinguished senator from a consular family with
4,500 men in 9 cohorts. Domitian would add a 10th. The marked republican leanings. His grandfather had been
prestige of the Guard was such that Titus chose as his consul in 19 BCE. The year 4 CE had seen a C. Sen-
first wife the daughter of a Prefect (Suetonius, Tit. 4), tius Saturninus as ordinary consul and then Cn. Sentius
and he himself would take the prefecture while virtual Saturninus, probably this man’s father (PIR s.v.), suf-
co-regent with Vespasian (Tit. 6). On the development fect consul from July 1 (Klein 1881: 16). The Sentius
of the Guard, see Watson 1969: 16-18; Webster 1985: in question here began his term as ordinary consul with
96-98. the princeps Gaius in 41, continuing on throughout that
Claudius’ special relationship with the Praetorian year (as far as we know) following the princeps’ death.
Guard, which was based in part on his being brother of He would meet his end among Nero’s republican victims,
the revered Germanicus (Ant. 19.217), is reflected in his with Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranus (Tacitus, Hist.
issue of gold coins (Levick 2001: plates 4, 7). He report- 4.7).
170 book two

moving, after entrusting the three cohorts that were standing fast with [them]1281 to guard
the city, gathered in the Capitolium.1282 Because of the savagery of Gaius, they voted to

1280
Like Sentius, Quintus Pomponius Secundus came civil war. That narrative incidentally mentions a military
from a distinguished senatorial family, in which his force on the side of the consuls, the strength of which
brother was the more famous one. In 41 CE the pres- constantly shifts according to the speaker: considerable,
ent Pomponius took over as consul at Gaius’ death (Jan. according to the Senate’s opening gambit (19.232); neg-
24); 3 years later (44 CE) his brother Publius Pomponius ligible, according to the senatorial envoys who visit the
Secundus would serve as suffect consul. Cassius Dio Guard (234); virtually non-existent, according to Agrippa,
(59.6.2) claims that under Tiberius, this present Quintus who sees any conflict as one between the Guard’s élite
Pomponius had spent 7 years (“after his consulship”) professionals and a motley crew of slaves along with
under arrest, subjected to mistreatment; Dio offers it as the Senate (241-43). All of this makes the best sense if
an example of the early Gaius’ virtue and rejection of the soldiers temporarily with the Senate were the urban
Tiberius’ methods that he released Pomponius (though cohorts; Wiseman (1991: 80) insists there is “no likeli-
Gaius would soon turn against the Senate). On the basis hood” that any of the Guard supported the Senate.
of Tacitus, Ann. 5.8.1, however, Syme (1970: 30) cites 1282
Roman authors and audiences understood Capi-
the story in Dio as an example of that author’s blunders, tolium with various levels of specificity, and the Latin
arguing that it actually concerns the brother, P. Pompo- in Capitolino (matching Josephus’ εἰς τὸ Καπετώλιον)
nius Secundus. Q. Pomponius’ brother was accused of was similarly ambiguous. The name could refer to the
friendship with the son of Seianus, and after the latter’s entire hill at the NW end of the forum, which comprised
fall spent 7 years in prison. Tacitus calls the brother “a two summits linked by a depression, or only the walled
man of great refinement of character and shining tal- SW summit, devoted to sacred buildings, or only the
ents” (e.g., he was a tragic poet), and Pliny the Younger most famous of these buildings: the Temple of Iuppiter
thought highly enough of him to write his biography (Ep. Optimus Maximus (“Jupiter Best and Greatest”) Capi-
3.5). So: an illustrious senatorial family. tolinus. As Josephus notes (Ant. 19.4), this last was the
Q. Pomponius Secundus was the step-brother of most important temple in Roman civic life. It sat on a
Gaius’ wife Caesonia (Syme 1979: 805-14), and a fierce podium 3.6 m (12 ft) high, and about 62 x 53 m (203 x
opponent of the monarchy after Gaius’ death. Opposing 174 ft) in area. Although fires and lightning strikes often
Claudius’ installation, as this narrative and the Antiqui-
required rebuilding or repairs (ongoing in Josephus’ time
ties counterpart show, he would meet his end as a con-
following the fire of 69 CE), the shrine was central to
spirator against Claudius in the revolt led by Arruntius
Roman identity. It was reached by a road (Clivus Capi-
Scribonianus in 42 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 13.43; cf. Wise-
tolinus) leading uphill from the Via Sacra in the Forum
man 1991: 72). Josephus writes as if both Sentius and
Romanum. Cf. Haselberger 2002: 78-79, 89-90, 155.
Pomponius were very familiar to his Roman audience,
The Senate ordinarily convened in the consecrated
which is entirely likely.
1281 Curia Iulia alongside the forum, but they sometimes
Although Josephus’ vague language might lead
met in other sacred buildings, and the Capitoline Temple
one to think that these are Praetorian cohorts, who
of Jupiter was used for sessions of special import. In
will soon defect from the senators and rejoin the main
republican times, victorious generals had traditionally
body in the barracks (2.211 below), Suetonius (Claud.
10.3) clarifies that it was the cohortes urbanae—a offered thanksgiving sacrifices there. Suetonius (Cal. 60)
sort of police force created by Augustus late in his and Cassius Dio (60.1.1) agree with Josephus in locating
reign (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5; cf. Webster 1985: 98-99)— this meeting of the Senate after Gaius’ death on the Capi-
that initially stood with the Senate. Since the urban toline, the former attributing it to the senators’ wish to
cohorts were 3 in number (X, XI, XII), that would avoid the building named for the Julio-Claudian dynasty
make sense of the story here (though Ant. 19.188 has (Iulia) because of their republican values. Like Jose-
4—the number under Claudius, who added a coh. XIII). phus here, Suetonius and Dio (apud Xiphilinus) collapse
In the parallel (Ant. 19.221-33), the division is more what were evidently two crucial meetings of the Senate,
clearly between the Guard as a whole, who wish to late on Jan. 24 and early on Jan. 25 (Ant. 19.158-233,
appoint Claudius as their man (19.225), and the sena- 248-52). Wiseman notes that the Temple of Jupiter was
tors, who want to assert their power to arrange the gov- well suited to defense, the consuls having already trans-
ernment (19.226-33). The populace (19.228-29) tends ferred the treasury there for that reason (Dio 59.13.3).
to side with the Praetorians, but for their own reasons: Ant. 19.248 calls the temple that of “Jupiter Bringer of
Claudius would provide a check on senatorial abuses Victory” (νικηφόρος), but Wiseman (1991: 96) shows
and ambition, which might otherwise lead to another that this was consonant with the Capitoline temple’s tra-
book two 171

make war against Claudius:1283 for they would establish1284 the rule through aristocracy,1285
even as in former times they used to manage affairs,1286 or they would determine by vote
the one worthy of imperium.1287
(11.2) 206 As it happened, at the very same time as the Senate1288 sent for Agrippa (who Negotiations
was staying nearby),1289 calling for consultation, so did Claudius1290 from the barracks,1291 involving
Agrippa. Ant.
19.236

ditional role for republican generals (above) and need not 91 and notes; also Ant. 6.36; 11.111; Mason 2008b).
1286
indicate a separate temple—of Jupiter Victor. The Senate’s desire for a return to the old ways of
1283
Greek Κλαυδίῳ πολεµεῖν ἐψηφίζετο. This is seri- collegial governance, before a “tyrant” dominated them,
ous, heavily charged language in a Roman context: mak- is the burden of Sentius’ extraordinary speech in Ant.
ing war (normally an activity against foreigners) against 19.169-84.
1287
fellow-citizens. It would involve placing Claudius in the This crisp summary of opinions, developed over
same category of public enemy (hostis)—denying him time in the Ant. 19 parallel, suggests that Josephus is
citizen rights and legal protections—once occupied by abbreviating a much fuller source here, perhaps like that
Catiline (Sallust, Cat. 7, 9, 31, 44, 48, 51-52, 60; Cicero, used for the later work.
Cat. 2.8.17; 3.12.27-28) and Marc Antony (Livy 119.4; The senators’ choice would naturally be one of their
Cicero, Fam. 12.10.1); cf. Levick 2001: 35. own men, rather than a figure imposed from outside.
1284
Although this verb is in the future tense (καταστή- Ant. 19.251-52 names the contenders as Marcus Vinicius
σεσθαι), the parallel verb below (κρίνειν) is accented (cos. 30 CE) and Valerius Asiaticus, though they were
as a present infinitive in all MSS. Niese mentions Coc- reportedly cowed by the Praetorian support for Claudius.
ceius’ proposal to change the second to a future as well This program—either aristocratic governance or senato-
(κρινεῖν), which has generally been followed by more rial choice of the most worthy princeps—is formally par-
recent editors. allel to the wishes of the Judean aristocracy as reported
1285
A telling choice of language: it seems that with at 2.22 (see notes there): either self-rule under their own
Gaius’ sudden death, some senators immediately broached aristocratic élite or a monarch of their collective choos-
the possibility of a return to the Republic and rejecting ing. According to Ant. 19.235 the Senate’s dignity may
of any supreme ruler (Suetonius, Claud. 10; Josephus, still be respected in a small compromise: Claudius, who
Ant. 19.174-81, 188-89: τὸ ἀβασίλευτον, οὐκέτι ἐπὶ τῷ will rule in any case by virtue of his military and popular
ἐφεστηκότι, 261-62)—a radical understanding of senato- support, will accept supreme power (ἀρχή) as some-
rial libertas, returning to a time when consuls had been thing granted by the Senate (παρὰ τῆς βουλῆς δέχεσθαι
masters of the military (Ant. 19.187). But most senators διδοµένην). But this only returns to the status quo estab-
quickly realized that they could not overcome the Praeto- lished by Augustus and Tiberius.
1288
rian and popular support for Claudius, and so interpreted See the note at 2.205.
1289
their libertas to mean that they would choose a worthy The verb ἐπιδηµέω can mean either “be at home
princeps (Ant. 19.249-51). Eventually, they settled for (as opposed to living abroad)” or “stay, reside in (a given
“choosing” the Guard’s choice: Claudius. place) as a foreigner.” Given that Rome was not Agrip-
Yet even the originally pondered return to a Repub- pa’s permanent home, and that in the only other 2 occur-
lic would not have meant an “aristocracy” as such, for rences of the verb in War (1.532; 3.313) the subjects are
notwithstanding the Senate’s great influence in direct- visitors, I render it thus.
ing affairs, the republican constitution had been mixed Agrippa has been introduced in this volume at 2.178.
(Polybius 6.11; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.7.2, 9.1; 7.50.2, Like many members of his family, having been raised in
56.3): popular voting assemblies passed the laws (leges), Rome he continues to spend substantial periods of time
and there were vestiges of royalty in the powers enjoyed there. According to 2.181-83 he last visited in 39/40 to
by the two consuls. Republican government could be challenge his uncle Antipas’ claim to royal status; upon
viewed as a de facto aristocracy, since the consuls were the latter’s exile, he received the territories of Galilee and
also part of the Senate and the Senate, the magistra- Perea into his growing kingdom. But Ant. 18.289-301
cies and priesthoods held by senators were crucial to gives him an important role in temporarily dissuading
the operation of the state, and senatorial counsel had Gaius from the statue affair, in the autumn of 40 CE,
massive influence on policy. Yet Josephus’ language and he seems to have returned to Judea, to take his new
about aristocracy here seems chosen in part to link kingdom, in the autumn of 41; cf. D. R. Schwartz 1990:
Roman and Judean history, for according to his narra- 77-89; Kokkinos 1998: 287-90.
1290
tive, aristocracy in the simpler form of government, by a The account in Ant. 19.229-44 portrays Agrippa’s
hereditary priestly élite, is indeed the best and traditional role quite differently. There, the Senate first dispatches
form of Judean government (cf. War 1.170; 2.22, 80, the tribunes of the plebs, [Q.] Veranius and a certain
172 book two

so that he might be useful to them1292 for what would be necessary. And he [Agrippa],1293
having fully understood that the Caesar1294 was already in power,1295 went off* to Claudius.
207 The latter sent him up*1296 to the Senate1297 as an emissary, explaining his own inten-
tion:1298 that although at first he had been seized by the soldiers unwillingly,1299 still he
would deem it neither right to leave the eagerness of these men in the lurch, nor safe1300
[to leave in the lurch] his own fortune1301—for merely having encountered the imperial
call1302 was hazardous.1303 208 Moreover, he would administer the office as a good patron

1298
Brocchus, to persuade Claudius to yield power to the By contrast, Ant. 19.238-44 has Agrippa visit
Senate. When he is on the brink of doing so, Agrippa Claudius to encourage him to seize power. He then goes
pushes his way in to see him and begins working on him home, from where the Senate summons him to hear his
to seize the opportunity for supreme power (19.238). views. After pointing out that Claudius’ Praetorian sup-
Agrippa then begins a cunning double game, pretending porters would preclude any effort by the Senate to dis-
to stand with the Senate and represent their position to place Claudius by force, he duplicitously proposes that
Claudius (so that he can learn their strength and resolve) he go to persuade Claudius to lay aside voluntarily any
while plotting with Claudius a successful strategy for claim to power (19.244).
1299
power. As Levick (2001: 34-39) shows, there are good
1291
The Praetorian barracks (castra praetoria) just reasons to doubt Claudius’ utter lack of complicity in
outside the porta Viminalis (see note to “units” at 2.204), his elevation. Ever since plots against Gaius had been
parts of which survive; cf. E. L. Caronna in LTUR mooted, some of which were motivated by anti-impe-
1.251-54; Coulston 2000. rial republican sentiments, Claudius as uncle of Gaius
1292
The plural apparently includes the soldiers and and brother of Germanicus, so a plausible candidate
Claudius. But in the parallel (see note to “Claudius”) it for power (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 6.46: Tiberius had thought
is Agrippa who directs affairs. of Claudius as successor), had reason to worry for his
1293
Although most MSS have κἀκεῖνος (emphatic safety. He could either remain aloof from the pending
“And that one”), two of the better ones (PA) do not; the assassination and live in perpetual fear, or join the plot
Latin explicitly adds his name (videns Agrippa). The with the Praetorians and try to secure his future through
simplest explanation, it seems, is that Josephus did not them. Levick notes that Claudius is said by Josephus
include the demonstrative pronoun, leaving the subject of (Ant. 19.102) to have been one of the 3 figures who left
the verb ἄπεισιν (“he goes off ”) grammatically vague. the theater where Gaius was to be murdered before the
The Latin translator added Agrippa’s name, whereas deed (the other two being the senators’ choices for prin-
Greek copyists inserted the demonstrative pronoun. ceps), which might suggest his advance knowledge—if
1294
This construction seems to assume that “Caesar” one discounts Josephus’ explanation that this resulted
was a title of office, as it had clearly become in Josephus’ from the efforts of the conspirators to remove Gaius’
time under the Flavians; see note to “Caesar” at 2.181. relatives, so that they would not interfere.
1300
At Claudius’ accession the matter was complicated. A similar rhetorical flourish (“neither safe nor
There were no naturally descended or adopted male Iulii right”) was used by Dinarchus, Philoc. 14; cf. [Diony-
Caesares, but Claudius had a familial connection to the sius], Ars rhet. 8.7; Plutarch, Them. 3.3.
1301
famous name by virtue of being uncle to the previous See the note to this word at 2.373.
1302
princeps, Gaius. Levick (2001: 42) argues that Claudius Greek τὸ τυχεῖν τῆς ἡγεµονικῆς κλήσεως. The
arranged to have the name formally voted to him—a step general sense is clear enough, but the precise nuance
on the road to its later use as a title. depends on construing the adjective: often “authorita-
1295
This narrative consistently presents Agrippa as tive,” but in this case presumably the call to be ἡγεµών
dutifully adapting himself to the one in power (as his ([supreme] governor), with ἡγεµονία (also the standard
great-grandfather Herod had done with brilliant success: equivalent to Latin imperium: the power held by high-
1. 127-31, 179, 183, 218-20, 242, 386, 400), whereas in ranking magistrates to exercise command). The adjective
the Antiquities parallel (see note to “Claudius” in this occurs elsewhere in War only at 2.308, where imperium
section) Agrippa inspires and leads Claudius to power. is not at issue.
1296 1303
“Up” onto the Capitoline hill, where the Senate Cf. Tacitus’ portrait of Mucianus’ urging Vespa-
is meeting at the Temple of Jupiter (see 2.206 and note sian to challenge Vitellius for the principate in 69 CE:
to “Capitolium”). “The time is long gone when you could be seen as not
1297
See the note at 2.205. yearning for power; now, that imperium is your only ref-
book two 173

and not as a tyrant.1304 For he would be satisfied with the honor of the address,1305 and
would yield to all1306 [of them] the deliberation1307 over each [item] of public business.1308
And even if he were not by nature moderate,1309 the death of Gaius presented to him a
sufficient example1310 of [the need for] prudence.1311
(11.3) 209 Agrippa reported these [things]. The council1312 responded: having come

uge! Are you forgetting how Corbulo [Nero’s success- letier, M-B), given the context of the speech (before the
ful general in the E] was murdered?” In addition to the Senate), the “all” being yielded to might more under-
general truth of the observation that those in or seeking standably be the senators. In that case, the point is that
power often eliminate rivals, the observation is particu- the princeps will not hoard power for himself, but will
larly apt in this case: the anti-Gaius movement led by respect their legitimate share in governing. This reading
the consuls were opposed to monarchy; if they had had is strengthened by the use of double-meaning words for
their way, anyone with imperial ambitions or credentials “deliberation” and “public affairs” in what follows (see
might have been at risk. notes), for only the Senate could plausibly be granted
1304
Claudius’ characterization of himself as good patron such oversight. This is one of the points of close verbal
or protector (προστάτης), as not a tyrant (τύραννος), has contact with the Antiquities parallel (19.246-47), which
rich associations. Plato had argued (Resp. 8.565d-566a) is similarly ambiguous: κοινῆς πᾶσι προκεισοµένης.
1307
that tyrants typically arise from a noble patronal role, Greek βουλή, which means “counsel” and by
when they first taste blood after violently suppressing extension the body that gives the counsel: the council
the people. Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 5.1305a; Diodorus 14.12.1 or Senate (as in the next section, 2.209). This is one of
(when Clearchus was entrusted with supreme power, he several word plays in the passage. See also the parallel
was no longer a patron, but a tyrant); esp. Josephus, War uses of “put up with” in 2.209.
1308
4.596; Ant. 4.146; 14.157. It is a Leitmotif of Josephus’ Or “of the commonwealth, the republic” (Greek
critique of monarchy, adapted from Aristotle and Poly- τὰ πράγµατα, the standard equivalent of Lat. res pub-
bius, that it often degenerates into tyranny (cf. Mason lica). Indeed Josephus’ Claudius (via Agrippa) could be
2003a, 2008b). For a Roman audience, the irony here is saying that he would leave each executive function in the
that even the bad emperors (e.g., Tiberius, Gaius, Nero, commonwealth to the Senate’s discretion, reserving for
Domitian) were typically portrayed as having begun well, himself only the supreme address.
1309
but then fallen or abruptly turned to tyranny. For the phrase φύσει µέτριος, see also Demos-
1305
It is not clear which address (προσηγορία) thenes, Cor. 321; Aeschines, Ctes. 11; Plutarch, Dem.
Josephus has in mind, since there was yet no office of 47.4.
1310
“emperor” (pace Whiston: “the honor of being called Curiously, Josephus uses ὑπόδειγµα only in War (6
emperor”): the early principate consisted an accumula- times), though this is his most Atticizing work, whereas
tion of formal offices and powers along with implicit he prefers the more acceptably Attic παράδειγµα in
recognition by the Senate as the leader or chief patron Antiquities (20 times) and Apion (once); the latter term
(princeps). Josephus’ anachronistic treatment of the appears in War only at 7.351. Outside the medical writer
name Caesar as though it were a title rather than the Apollonius, the word used here was favored most con-
inheritance of the Julio-Claudians (see note to “Caesar” spicuously by Polybius (used 11 times), who also does
at 2.181) and his reference to this title again in the previ- not use παράδειγµα.
1311
ous sentence (2.206) render that a better possibility. Or In the parallel (Ant. 19.245-47), it is not Agrippa
again, he has captured the principal role of the princeps who gives this speech to the Senate in chamber, but Clau-
as chief patron with the term προστάτης (perhaps prin- dius who conveys the same sentiments to a delegation
ceps) in this sentence; that is also possible likely. The from the Senate visiting him in the Praetorian barracks
parallel (Ant. 19.246) removes the problem by having (after a brief conspiratorial interview with Agrippa).
1312
Claudius pledge, with Josephan rhetorical balance, that That is, the Senate. Whereas ἡ σύγκλητος is the
“in name only (ὀνόµατι µὲν µόνῷ) would the rule come term that Josephus, like other Greek writers, reserves
to be [his], whereas in fact (ἔργῷ δέ) it would devolve to for the Roman Senate (see the note at 2.205), ἡ βουλή
all of them in common.” On Josephus’ ongoing contrast being a generic term for the council—typically 500 citi-
between names, titles, or addresses and real power, as zens of a Greek city (2.639; Ant. 14.190, 213, 225, 235,
a function of the appearance/reality dichotomy, see the 244, 259, 314)—also that of Jerusalem (2.331, 336),
notes to “titles” at 2.2, 28. when he must frequently refer to the Senate he can also
1306
Although it is conceivable that Josephus means intersperse the generic term for the sake of variation (cf.
by πᾶσιν “the whole people” (Thackeray in LCL, Pel- Ant. 19.229, 235, 242, 248). The transition has a special
174 book two

to rely on both a military force1313 and good judgments,1314 they would not tolerate1315 a
voluntary slavery.1316
When he heard these [things] from the council, Claudius again sent Agrippa to report to
them that he would not tolerate1317 betraying the men who had united behind him, but he
would make war unwillingly1318 upon those he least wanted to [fight]. 210 It was necessary,

effect here because Josephus has just used βουλή in its War is largely about this issue of “freedom” and the
other main sense, for the Senate’s deliberative power (see competing claims to effecting it (resulting in the stasis,
“deliberation” at 2.208). tyranny, and final slavery that fill these pages; see Intro-
1313
That is, the 3 urban cohorts who stand with the duction and the note to “slavery” at 2.185). A central
senators (2.205), though these will soon defect (2.211). paradox is that the rebel leaders, though campaigning
At Ant. 19.232 the Senate adduces “much of the army” under the banner of freedom, invariably become tyrants,
(τῆς στρατιᾶς πολύ) and a vast number of slaves as their who impose the most bitter slavery on their compatri-
own supporters—possibly a rhetorical bluff. ots; their aristocratic opponents reject such a voluntary
1314
This may be shorthand for the long list of argu- servitude to unworthy compatriots (e.g., War 2.264, 443;
ments made by the Senate at Ant. 19.229-33. The sen- 4.177-78, 394). The theme of voluntary slavery will be
ators are trying to revive their bygone role as a fully reprised in the narrative soon after Claudius’ death, when
deliberative body whose decisions counted, not one the Judean rebels ironically threaten their compatriots
whose judgments are constantly adapted to the wishes with death if they choose voluntarily to be slaves (τοὺς
of a princeps. ἑκουσίως δουλεύειν προαιρουµένους) to the Roman
1315
Josephus’ language continues to strengthen the imperium (2.264; so also the Masada rebels, harassing
bond between his narrative and the political discourse of their neighbors at 7.255). And then, just after the mid-
Flavian Rome. Patientia or ὑποµονή was highly charged point of the work, the adversaries of John of Gischala,
language among the Roman élite, especially in Tacitus, who emerges as a tyrant with monarchical ambitions,
concerning the toleration of rivals for power, tyrants fight him because they prefer war to a voluntary slav-
and monarchs, or (from foreign perspectives) Roman ery (4.394). The dead end of the rebels’ naïve approach
rule itself (cf. Cicero, Cat. 1.1; Fam. 12.15.3; Tacitus, to freedom (as something radical and absolute) will be
Hist. 1.16 [Galba to Piso: Romans cannot tolerate either their attempt, dictated by necessity, to make a virtue of
complete slavery or complete freedom]; 2.37; 3.31, 66; suicide at Masada as the last, desperate act of “free”
4.80; Ann. 1.31; 3.65; 4.46; 12.50 [of Armenians]; 13.56; men (7.384-85).
14.26, 64; 15.6; 16.16 [patientia servilis], 22 [the prin- In explicating these themes, Josephus has frequent
ceps’ tolerance of opposition, as 6.38]). recourse (as in this passage) to affairs in Rome. He
1316
This paradoxical phrase (δουλείαν ἑκούσιον) brings the two worlds into closest contact in Ant. 19,
touches an issue that was often discussed in paradoxical where he gives considerable space to the Senate’s debates
terms in antiquity: the nature of freedom and slavery. To after the death of Gaius concerning their freedom (e.g.,
understand the force of such discussions appear we need 19.57, 168-78, 181, 184, 227, 248, 250). These intersect
to recall, first, the basic division of humanity between with ongoing struggles in Judea between monarchy (e.g.,
slaves and free, and second, the political domination of in Saul and Herod) and aristocracy; see Mason 2003a,
former Mediterranean states by Rome (often described 2008b. This recalls Tacitus’ characterization: Tiberius, no
as slavery, as in the speeches of War ). These situations lover of public liberty himself, used to leave the curia
led to much reflection on the nature of true freedom, muttering disdainfully in Greek, “How prepared these
especially among Stoic philosophers, with their view men are to be slaves!” (o homines ad servitutem paratos!
that the only worthwhile freedom was internal: all good Ann. 3.65; cf. Hist. 1.16).
1317
men were free (the title of a tract by Philo) and all bad Notice the artful repetition of the verb ὑποµένω
men were slaves (to vice: the title of a lost essay by for both the Senate and Claudius. It is part of Josephus’
Philo; cf. Seneca, Ep. 47.17). The paradoxical language narrative even-handedness that he presents both cases
of voluntary slavery thus has many applications: posi- with full vigor; both positions are understandable and
tively, when in Plato’s Symposium (184c) the character neither has an obvious moral advantage. One finds the
Pausanias compares the voluntary slavery to love with same balance in Tacitus, where patientia is used both of
willing slavery to virtue; negatively, when Seneca decries the Senate’s tolerance of (or even debasement before)
the voluntary slavery (servitus . . . voluntaria) of free the princeps and of the princeps’ putting up with various
citizens to shows and actors—in addition to their more aggravations; see the note earlier in this section.
1318
understandable slavery to fear and hope, sex and greed The paradoxical word play continues: whereas the
(Ep. 47.17). senators would not tolerate a willful (ἑκούσιον) slavery,
book two 175

however, that an area for the war be pre-approved1319 outside the city, for it would not be
holy for the sanctuaries of their native land to be polluted1320 by internecine slaughter1321
on account of their bad counsel.1322
Upon hearing these [things], he [Agrippa] reported them to the councilors.1323
(11.4) 211 But meanwhile, one of the soldiers with the Senate1324 drew his sword
and shouted, “Men and fellow-soldiers,1325 what have we suffered that we want brother-
killing,1326 and to rush against those kinsmen with Claudius,1327 when we have on the
one hand an imperator1328 who cannot be blamed in any way, and on the other hand such
obligations towards those on whom we are about to advance with weapons?” 212 After
saying these things, he rushed1329 through the middle of the council,1330 drawing after him

and Claudius would not tolerate leaving his supporters in lightly attested before Josephus (esp. Xenophon, Hell.
the lurch, now Claudius is about to undertake war unwill- 2.4.20; 5.3.17; Anab. 1.2.26; once each in Isaeus, Plato,
ingly (ἄκων)—on those whom he least wishes to fight. Diodorus, Strabo; twice in Aristotle); it is much more
1319
The rare form προαποδείκνυµι, barely attested common from Josephus’ time onwards (e.g., in Plutarch
before Josephus (Isocrates, 3.12), turns up in his writings [14], Appian [17], Herodian [10], Polyaenus [11], Cas-
3 times—also Ant. 17.102; Apion 2.8. sius Dio [13]).
1320 1326
Greek ὁµοφύλῷ φόνῳ µιαίνεσθαι. Again, Jose- Greek ἀδελφοκτονεῖν. This compound verb and
phus’ Claudius expresses prominent themes of War . For cognates are rare before Josephus (LXX Wis 10:3; Dio-
the pollution of the shrine (singular in Jerusalem) by car- nysius, Ant. rom. 3.21.2; Nicolaus of Damascus, Frag.
nage, especially involving compatriots, see: 2.424; 4.150, 5.68), outside of Philo, who uses it often (Spec. 3.16,
159, 163, 201, 215, 323; 5.10, 402; 6.95. Without the 18; Agr. 21; Post. Cain. 50; Jos. 13; Virt. 199; Det. pot.
temple context, note also the closely matching language 96; Ebr. 66; Legat. 234; Cher. 52.7; Fug. 60; Praem.
at 3.391 (µιᾶναι τὴν δεξιὰν ὁµοφύλῷ φόνῳ). 68, 72, 74). Josephus also employs the word-group liber-
1321
Greek ὁµοφύλῳ φόνῳ. This appears to be ally (War 1.606, 638; Ant. 1.65; 2.24. 29; 13.314; 17.60;
Josephus’coinage, which he employs often (3.391; 4.184; 17.75, 91). This is another example of his “Philonic”
5.381; 6.4, 109, 122; Ant. 17.285). Irrespective of the language.
1327
source he used for this piece of Roman history, there- Although Josephus does not clarify it in this ver-
fore, he has fully assimilated the episode to the primary sion (perhaps he expects a Roman audience to know?):
themes of War: civil war and murder, a result of bad the Praetorian Guard; see 2.205-6 and notes.
1328
thinking, and polluting the ancestral holy places. This Another standard Greek equivalent (αὐτοκράτωρ),
accommodation serves his ongoing comparison between used consistently by Josephus. I retain the Latin here
Judean and Roman politics; see Introduction. because it is a hardly translatable term; cf. the note at
1322
The noun κακοβουλία is barely attested in litera- Life 342, and to imperium at Life 5, in BJP 9. Of the
ture before Josephus (Chrysippus, Frag. mor. fr. 265), two senses given by Cassius Dio (52.41.3-4)—describing
though he has it 5 times (also 1.631; 2.346, 399; Ant. a victorious general or an honorary title for a supreme
6.42); Plutarch (Comp. Lys. Sull. 4.2; Cato min. 35.7; ruler, only the latter applies to Claudius here. Dio notes
Ag. Cleom. 17.7) and Diogenes Laertius (7.93) use it (52.40.2) that—in his time, 3rd century CE—Romans
occasionally. This closing note answers, symmetrically, used this term as a euphemism for the distasteful “king.”
the Senate’s opening assertion of their own good judg- The soldiers’ exclamation is ironic, in that imperator
ments (2.209: γνῶµαι ἀγαθαί). Claudius was at this point desperately lacking in mili-
1323
I.e., senators; see the note to “council” at 2.209. tary credentials, which lack is what drove his success-
In the Antiquities parallel (19.238-47) Agrippa takes a ful invasion of Britain (43 CE) soon after taking office
great deal more initiative: first, encouraging Claudius to (cf. Levick 2001: 137-48). Note Suetonius’ observa-
thoughts of empire (19.238), then pretending to be on tion (Claud. 12) that Claudius modestly refrained from
the side of Senate liberty, asking Claudius to give up any assuming imperator as part of his name (praeonomen).
1329
claim (19.240, 244), then reporting to Claudius on the Josephus re-uses the verb (ὁρµάω) from the previ-
Senate’s weakness (19.245), which intelligence paved the ous section ironically. Normally, as there, it is used of
way for Claudius’ final stroke. aggressive attacks; here he stresses that the urban cohorts
1324
I.e., the urban cohorts: see notes to “with [them]” are not about to rush against their Praetorian brothers,
and “Senate” at 2.205. but only to “rush” (or charge) through the Senate.
1325 1330
The noun συστρατιώτης, which occurs again See the note at 2.209.
in the next sentence and 6 times in War (3 in Ant.), is
176 book two

all his fellow-soldiers.1331 Now, the nobles1332 immediately became very anxious about the
desertion and in their turn, since a saving reversal of course1333 did not appear, urgently
pursued the soldiers’ route to Claudius.1334
213 Those who were more egregiously flattering fortune1335 came out to meet them
in front of the wall1336 with swords bared,1337 and it might have been dangerous for those
leading the group1338—before Claudius even knew about the charge of the soldiers1339—if
Agrippa had not run up and explained to him the danger of the situation,1340 and that if
he [Claudius] did not restrain the charge of those who had become rabid1341 against the
nobles1342 then, after destroying those on whose account being supreme1343 is impressive,1344
he would be king of a desert.1345

1331
See note in the previous section. which was “his fortune”: οἱ ποιηταὶ κολακεύοντες
1332
Yet again Josephus uses a Greek word (εὐπατρίδαι) αὐτοῦ τὴν τύχην . . . . The Latin Josephus interprets:
that he normally reserves for its equivalence to a Latin fortuna Regis (“the ruler’s/king’s fortune”). In the present
term (in this case, nobiles). Although the Latin word passage, as in Plutarch, the point seems to be that these
essentially means “renowned, illustrious,” it specifically aggressive soldiers are merely taking advantage of the
designated first the patrician order (Livy 6.42; Diony- upper hand that fortune has momentarily handed them,
sius, Ant. rom. 2.8, 9.2) and later, from the 4th century against all the wisdom of Polybius (cf. note to “fortune”
BCE, those whose ancestors had held one of the highest at 2.184): they might as easily have found themselves
(“curule”) magistracies in Rome—consulship, praetor- in the opposite camp. On fortune, see the note at 2.373
ship, curule aedileship; holding such offices entitled heirs below.
1336
to display the ancestors’ imagines (painted masks). The wall of the Praetorian camp, just outside the
It is in the specific sense of “well born” that the Viminal Gate. See notes to “units” at 2.204, to “bar-
Greek term overlaps. In Antiquities Josephus uses the racks” at 2.206.
1337
word only 6 times: 5 of these concern Roman nobles See the note to “bare” at 2.173.
1338
whom Tiberius (18.226) and then Gaius (19.2, 75, 132, In Ant. 19.263, the consul Q. Pomponius is singled
136) mistreated and executed on trumped-up charges, out for mention: the Praetorians would have murdered
mainly to confiscate their property. In the other case (Ant. him, had Claudius not intervened.
1339
17.307-10), Josephus uses the word of Judean “nobles” The point of this clause, missing from the paral-
executed by a tyrannical Herod, implying a link with lel, seems to be to highlight Agrippa’s intermediary role
the later Roman despots. The only two occurrences in (only in War ’s version).
1340
War are in this sentence and the next. The Roman audi- Curiously, since Agrippa plays a much larger role
ence should understand that the nobles in question, who in the Antiquities parallel, this particular deed is unnec-
are distraught at losing their chance for freedom from essary there because Claudius intervenes directly and
a princeps, are those who have suffered so much at the personally protects the consul, but not the other senators,
hands of Tiberius and Gaius. Josephus appears to use the who are mistreated by the soldiers (19.263). Agrippa’s
term here as a rough equivalent of “senators,” without appearance comes slightly later (19.265), in the form of
requiring the more technical sense of nobilitas. advice on handling the Senate as a whole.
1333 1341
The phrase ἀποστροφὴ σωτήριος has a Thucydid- This is the first of 5 occurrences of the colorful
ean ring (ἀποστροφὴν σωτηρίας: 8.75.3). verb λυσσάω (“be rabid”) in War (only—also 2.312;
1334
In the much fuller parallel (Ant. 19.248-67), this is 4.371 [a central passage]; 5.4; 6.196); it is thus part of
a second, pre-dawn meeting of the Senate called by the War’s vocabulary of beast-like madness and unreason.
consuls, attended by only a fraction of the body (no more Although it is found among the tragedians and other
than 100 of 600 senators). The course of the meeting is classical authors, Josephus might more likely have been
more complicated there: only some senators, it seems inspired by Polybius (5.11.5; 16.1.2; 23.10.16; 32.15.8),
(19.264: “those senators who had gone with Quintus”), the main historian to use it in related senses, or Philo,
go to the Praetorian camp, in the face of serious opposi- who has the verb a remarkable 20 times.
1342
tion; these include the consul Q. Pomponius. See the note to this word in the previous sec-
1335
Greek οἱ σφοδρότερον κολακεύοντες τὴν τύχην. tion.
1343
The closest parallel to this curious phrase appears to be Or “having control, being in charge” (τὸ κρα-
in Plutarch’s essay On the Fortune of Alexander the Great τεῖν).
1344
(Mor. 331a), where he complains that the poets eulogize Or “brings with it prominence.” Although simple,
Alexander not for what he cultivated (viz., moral virtue) this adjective (περίοπτος)—“conspicuous, in plain view,
but for what chance or fortune gave him (viz., power), visible from all around”—had only a recent history by
book two 177

(11.5) 214 After hearing these [things], Claudius restrained the rushes1346 of the military
and welcomed* the Senate1347 into the camp.1348 He showed kindness towards them,1349 and
went out with them right away to offer sacrifices of thanksgiving for his rule.1350
215 He promptly presented Agrippa with the latter’s entire ancestral kingdom,1351 hav- Agrippa
awarded former
ing added to it from outside also Trachonitis and Auranitis,1352 which had been given by kingdom of
Augustus to Herod,1353 and besides these another kingdom called “Lysanias’s.”1354 216 He Herod the
Great. Ant.
19.274

Josephus’ time (Diodorus [2], Dionysius [2], Strabo [1]), otherwise protected only the consul, Q. Pomponius.
whereas he uses it 9 times (in War , 2.344, 476; 3.232). War’s version could nevertheless be a compression of
The parallel (Ant. 19.265) has Agrippa advise a kinder, the (source of the) later version.
1350
gentler approach to the senators on the ground that, if The noun χαριστήρια, here preceded by θύσων
anything bad happened to them, Claudius would have no τῷ θεῷ τὰ περὶ τῆς ἡγεµονίας, always indicates thanks-
others to rule (οὐχ ἕξειν ὣν ἄρξειεν ἑτέρων). Both con- giving sacrifices in Josephus, but nearly always to the
structions are paradoxical, even cynical. Although one Judean God (Ant. 2.269; 3.60, 225, 228, 245; 4.101;
might imagine that monarchs rule the masses (vulgus, τὸ 6.10, 57, 151; 9.209; 10.24; 11.110; 12.25, 349). Pre-
πλῆθος), and so could dispense with a standing council sumably these in Rome would be conducted in the tem-
of élites, in Josephus’ formulation this would miss the ple to Jupiter on the Capitoline. By contrast, the parallel
point: the princeps—ostensibly “first man” of the Senate, at Ant. 19.266 (cf. 19.268) has Claudius carried through
and no king—gains his prestige from his pre-eminence the heart of the city, from the Praetorian camp on the NE
over other powerful men, in the Senate. Senate hopes for side to the Palatine hill (in the SW), the residential area
the removal of the principate, mooted above, are shown of the principes, where he invites the Senate to convene
to be fantasies; the mere survival of the Senate will be (perhaps in the Temple of Apollo) to decide the case of
an achievement. Gaius’ assassins.
1345 1351
The dark humor in being king of a desert (ἐρη- Or “with the entire kingdom of his fatherly inheri-
µίας βασιλεύς) is anticipated by Josephus’ Herod in tance” (τῇ πατρῴᾳ βασιλείᾳ πάσῃ). Modern transla-
1.355 (also the parallel, Ant. 14.484): the new sovereign tors (Thackeray, Pelletier, M-B) tend to specify that the
implores his Roman ally Sossius to restrain his soldiers kingdom was that of Agrippa’s grandfather Herod. This
(after they have assisted Herod in seizing his kingdom) may be correct, but the Greek does not say so, and such
so that he will not be left king of a wasteland. The ironic an interpretation creates difficulties for what comes next:
quality of the phrase may account for “king” here, which the addition to this kingdom of areas that were formerly,
Josephus uses sparingly of Roman principes, for whom as Josephus notes, part of Herod’s domains. He clearly
associations with kingship were to be avoided in Rome. means to indicate the Judean heartland based in Jeru-
With Herod’s remark may be compared that of the Pict salem, along with Galilee (held not only by Agrippa’s
Calgacus according to Tacitus, Agric. 30: “Where they grandfather Herod, but also by the later Hasmoneans and
[the Romans] create a desert, they call it peace (ubi soli- by biblical kings long before). Levick (2001: 166): “By
tudinem faciunt, pacem appellant).” Titus, by the same giving Agrippa Judaea in 41 Claudius made him a great
logic (War 5.373), insists that it is not in his interest to king, ruler of as much territory as Herod the Great.”
1352
capture a city devoid of men and a devastated country- See notes at 1.398-400; 2.58 (“Trachonites”), 95.
side. These are territories lying E (NE and SE) of Lake Gen-
1346
Repetition of the same verb and noun creates a nesaret, the Sea of Galilee, beyond Gaulanitis (the Golan
sort of antiphonal response to Agrippa’s plea in the pre- Heights). These territories from Philip’s tetrarchy will
vious section: Claudius did precisely what he was asked also be given to Agrippa’s son (Agrippa II) at 2.247.
1353
to do. Josephus reverses what has been “added” to
1347
See the note to “Claudius” at 2.212: according to what. The kingdom of the Judean heartland held by his
Ant. 19 it is a fraction of the Senate’s membership. For grandfather Herod is in fact the significant addition to
the Senate, see the note at 2.205. the regions N and NE that he holds already. Josephus
1348
See the note to “barracks” at 2.206. For the has reported that Agrippa received the territories of the
imprecise relationship between παρεµβολὴ (there) deceased tetrarch Philip—in 37 CE, at Gaius’ accession
and στρατόπεδον (here)—they can be interchange- (2.181)—including: Trachonitis, Batanea, Auranitis, and
able, though the former sometimes refers to the site or Gaulanitis (so Ant. 18.106; War 1.668; 2.95). Accord-
grounds rather than the constructed camp—see e.g. War ing to 1.398-400, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Auranitis
3.76-77, 90. (apparently also Lysanias’ kingdom) were indeed part
1349
According to Ant. 19.264-65, Claudius’ kinder of Herod’s kingdom, added by Augustus in about 23
treatment came at the insistence of Agrippa: he had BCE.
178 book two

made this gift clear to the people by edict and ordered the magistrates,1355 after engraving
the award on bronze tablets, to dedicate them in the Capitolium.1356 217 He also presented*
his [Agrippa’s] brother Herod,1357 who was himself also his relative by marriage,1358 since
he was married to Bernice,1359 with the kingdom of Chalcis.1360
(11.6) 2181361 Quickly, as it would from a domain of such magnitude, wealth was

1354
Lysanias was a 1 st-century BCE Iturean king Herod’s death (48 CE) follows after just a few sentences
(1.248; cf. 103, 185), whose territory was also connected (2.221). In Antiquities, he plays a much more important
with Zenodorus (1.398; cf. the note to “Zenon” at 2.95 role between his marriage to Berenice (19.277) and his
above). It lay W and N of Damascus in the slopes of the death (20.104). He was reportedly respected by Clau-
Antilebanon range. dius (20.13), whom he and Agrippa persuaded to issue
1355
In a Greek city οἱ ἄρχοντες had both a general an edict on behalf of Alexandria’s Judeans (19.279),
(“office-holders”) and a specific meaning: either one per- and from whom he won a hereditary authority over the
son whose title was archon (the senior civic official) or temple with power to designate the Judean high priest
a member of the 10-member board of archons. In Greek (20.15-16).
1358
cities and leagues the nomenclature was complicated by Here brother-in-law, though Greek γαµβρός is
the addition of στρατηγός (also plural, sometimes in also used of sons (Whiston here: “son-in-law”), fathers,
boards of 10 as in Cleisthenes’ Athens). As a transla- and brothers.
1359
tion of Latin terms, ἄρχων had official status only as So her name is spelled (Βερνίκη) in the Greek
the equivalent of magistratus, as we see from bilingual MSS of War 1-2, whereas throughout Antiquities-Life
inscriptions: “[it] refers above all to an independent her name appears as Berenice (Βερενίκη): she was Iulia
magistrate, acting under his own auspices” (H. J. Mason Berenice (b. 28 CE), daughter of Agrippa I and Cyprus.
1974: 111). Although the term was widely used by Greek Ant. 19.354 narrates that, although she was only 16 when
authors for the princeps, the consuls, provincial gov- her father died in 44 CE, her marriage at that time to
ernors, and even various military prefects, such usage her father’s brother (Herod of Chalcis) was already her
was neither stable nor official. The context here suggests second; the first had been to a prominent Alexandrian,
that Josephus means to indicate Roman senatorial mag- M. Iulius Alexander, son of the alabarch Alexander—ap-
istrates. In the vast majority of the 136 occurrences of parently in 41 CE. The marriage to Herod of Chalcis will
the term in his corpus, however, it has the general mean- end with his death in 48 CE, after which Berenice will
ing of a city’s leaders or ruling class: we are often not marry King Polemon of Chalcis (Ant. 20.145-46). Later
dealing with Greek cities and their formal institutions (in her late 40s) she will cause a scandal in Rome by
or nomenclature (e.g., Ant. 3.70-71, 222, 232; 4.126; becoming the lover of the heir-apparent Titus, 11 years
7.363). her junior: he reportedly dismissed her immediately upon
1356
Josephus anticipates here his keen interest in his accession (Suetonius, Tit. 7; Tacitus, Hist. 2.2; Cas-
these “bronze tablets (δέλτοι χαλκαί) in the Capito- sius Dio 66.15.4, 18.1; Jones and Milns 2002: 105-7).
lium,” to which he will appeal repeatedly in the Antiqui- Between these marriages and other relationships, Beren-
ties (12.416; 14.191, 197, 219, 221, 266, 319; 16.48; cf. ice was so often found in her bachelor brother Agrippa
War 7.10) as proof of Judean rights granted by the Senate II’s company (e.g., Acts 25:13, 23) that rumors of an
and various Roman monarchs. It was traditional for such incestuous affair circulated widely (Ant. 20.145; cf. Juve-
tablets, especially senatorial decress related to foreign nal 6.156-60). In spite of Josephus’ generally disparaging
policy, to be deposited in the Capitoline Temple of Jupi- outlook on women, however, War consistently portrays
ter. Levick observes (2001: 97) that under Claudius the Berenice as a stateswoman, an energetic and deeply com-
Senate issued senatus consulta at a faster rate than in mitted leader in Judea before the outbreak of war (cf.
other periods of the early principate. As Moehring points 2.310-14, 333-34, 405, 426, 595).
1360
out (1975: 131), however, the fire of 69 CE—ignited dur- Cf. War 1.185 and note. This Chalcis (sub Libano)
ing the civil war between Vitellianists and Flavian par- was the leading center of Iturea—in the S Bekaa Valley
tisans (Tacitus, Hist. 3.71-75)—destroyed thousands of between the Lebanon and Antilebanon ranges—nestled
these. Scholars continue to discuss which tablets might in the W edge of the Antilebanon. Cf. Schottroff 1982;
have been available in Josephus’ Rome (after a vigorous Butcher 2003: 93-96, 115-16. Butcher observes (96) that
effort at restoration by Vespasian: Suetonius, Vesp. 8), this notice “may mean that he inherited the remnants of
what access Josephus had, and how he used them (see the Ituraean kingdom.”
1361
Pucci ben Zeev 1995, 1998). The next two paragraphs read as a précis of the
1357
Son of Herod’s murdered son Aristobulus II and material that Josephus will later use for Ant. 19.326-52;
Berenice I (War 1.552 and note). Here in War, this 20.1-16, 97-104; 18.130-42. We have here a set of very
book two 179

flowing to Agrippa,1362 and it was not long before1363 he exploited these resources; for he
began to surround Hierosolyma with a wall1364 so great that if it had been completed at

brief statements on many topics—Agrippa’s wall, his intentions (5.152). He notes, however (5.155), that the
death, his children, the two governors who followed him later defenders of Jerusalem hastily built it up to a height
in Judea, and the family line of his uncle Alexander— of about 37 ft (12 m).
that suggest Josephus’ knowledge of much more (along That claim about Agrippa’s fear of being thought
the lines of what is in Antiquities) than he chooses to rebellious is intriguingly elaborated in Ant. 19.326-27:
relate here. the Syrian legate C. Vibius Marsus (cos. 17, legate 42-44
1362
From the northern regions, formerly assigned to CE), who had an ongoing feud with Agrippa related to
Philip, Josephus has mentioned an annual revenue of other behavior construed as conspiratorial (viz., hosting
100 talents (2.95); Galilee and Perea, Antipas’ former a group of regional kings: 19.338-42, 363), reported the
tetrarchy, yielded 200 (2.95); and the heartland that wall project to Claudius; the latter, suspecting revolu-
was Archelaus’ territory yielded 400 (2.97, though 600 tionary possibilities, urgently wrote that Agrippa should
according to Ant. 17.320). This was a massive income desist. Levick (2001: 159) suggests that precisely this
(4.2 million drachmas on the low end, 5.4 million on the Roman suspicion of alliances among the region’s kings
high end); see the note to “talents” at 2.50. Ant. 19.352 might well have been Claudius’ main reason for discon-
indicates a total revenue of 12 million drachmas (dimin- tinuing native rule in Judea after Agrippa’s death in 44
ished by vast expenditures), but the text seems to say and recreating it as a province (see 2.220).
that Agrippa took measures to maximize revenue from The 3 passages involving Agrippa and Jerusalem’s
his territories. walls, in keeping with the pattern of such parallels, do not
1363
Josephus here uses a fixed expression (οὐκ εἰς quite agree. (a) Here he does not mention the New City,
µακράν) that he also favors elsewhere (War 1.490; 3.186, and one might rather think of the main city walls, except
193; 4.227, 362; 5.457, 546; 7.84, 416, 451, and often in that the language (περιβαλεῖν ἤρξατο τεῖχος) implies a
Antiquities), but which had come into vogue only with new construction, prevented by Agrippa’s death. (b) The
Dionysius. Before Dionysius, who uses it 27 times, it passage in bk. 5 speaks of a new wall for the New City.
appears once or twice in Demosthenes, Aeschines, Xeno- (c) The parallel at Ant. 19.326 claims that Agrippa “forti-
phon, and Diodorus. Philo has it 23 times; Josephus uses fied the walls of Jerusalem that faced [or “joined, looked
it 22 times; and from his time onward it is common to”] the New City (τὰ δὲ τῶν Ἱεροσολύµων τείχη τὰ
(Galen, Lucian, Aristides, Artemidorus), though curi- πρὸς τὴν καινὴν νεύοντα πόλιν . . . ὠχύρου), by both
ously it is absent from Plutarch. broadening their width and raising their height”—a proj-
1364
In view of the elaborate description of Jerusalem’s ect ended by the legate’s report to Claudius (19.327).
walls at War 5.147-55, this appears to be the “3rd wall” The language of that passage might seem to suggest the
undertaken by Agrippa. Josephus reports in the later fortification of Jerusalem’s existing walls on its N and
passage that the city’s population had long since over- most vulnerable side (the other 3 sides being marked by
flowed its original walls, especially in the “New City” deep valleys), in which case the project of walling the
area (Bezetha) to the N. Agrippa, recognizing the vul- New City (described in War 5) would be something dif-
nerability of those living in these areas, set about incor- ferent. But the connections among the passages (fear of
porating their neighborhoods into the city with a wall creating a revolutionary impression, mention of the New
constructed of massive ashlars: 9 m (30 ft) long and 4.5 City in War 5 and Ant., the remarkable and indomitable
m (15 ft) wide. The size is plausible, if staggering to con- nature of the walls, had they been completed, in all 3
template, given the size of the blocks used by Herod for passages) suggest that all references are to the same wall,
the temple’s western retaining wall (some of which are for the New City.
50% longer than this). Scholars have long debated where If the same (3rd) wall is in view, then either this pas-
this 3rd wall ran. Although many have located its course sage and the one in bk. 5 mislead by ignoring the fact
roughly along the line of the present old city’s N wall, that it already had a base of some sort (Ant. 19.326), and
excavations in 1925-1927 found remains of fortifications the residents of the New City were already enclosed in
about 450-500 m N of the present (16th-cent.) wall, and some measure (so Bernett 2007: 305-8, who sees Agrip-
the weight of scholarship now favors that option. See pa’s attempt at internal legitimation and strengthening
the discussions in Schmitt 1981; Hamrick 1966, 1968, non-Roman alliances), or Josephus reports on two or
1977; Kloner 1986. Josephus claims that Agrippa only more phases: the beginning here, halted for fear of creat-
got as far as laying the foundations, halting the project ing a revolutionary impression (War 5), followed by an
out of fear that Claudius would suspect revolutionary attempt to build on that incomplete foundation, which
180 book two

Agrippa I dies, that size it would have made the siege never-ending1365 for the Romans.1366 219 But he
44 CE. Ant. forestalled the work before it reached its height by having expired in Caesarea.1367 He had
19.346
exercised kingship for three years,1368 having been leader1369 of the tetrarchies for three ad-
ditional years before that.1370 220 He left behind* three daughters who had been born from
Cyprus1371—Bernice, Mariamme, and Drusilla1372—and a son Agrippa1373 from the same

was halted by Marsus’ report (as Ant. 19—all the more torso, which led to his death in the nearby palace 5 days
a concern if Agrippa had already started and stopped later.
1368
once), and the summary verdict here, that Agrippa would That is: 41-44 CE; cf. Ant. 19.343, 351.
1369
have completed this pet project (at some point) if death See the note at 2.168: a useful verb for someone
had not prevented him. who was not a king.
1370
Cicero (De off. 2.60) lists the construction of city That is: the tetrarchy of Philip (2.181) from Agrip-
walls, docks, harbors, and aqueducts as worthwhile proj- pa’s release by Gaius in 37 CE (though taking possession
ects for a city’s élite to sponsor (in contrast to public in the summer of 38); that of Antipas from 39 (2.183);
entertainments or disbursements of cash, which have no the Judean heartland from 41 to 44 (2.215). On some
lasting effect, except to create further expectations, and complexities, see Kokkinos 1998: 280-81. Ant. 19.351
can bankrupt the giver). With the notable exception of gives him 4 years as king under Gaius (37-41), 3 of these
proudly unwalled Sparta, a city’s walls were a source over Philip’s, plus 1 over Antipas’, former tetrarchies.
of great pride—the bigger, the better. They also served Although he seems to mean that 3 years were given to
obvious practical purposes: not only in the rare event of Philip’s tetrarchy alone, then 1 to Antipas’ (hence the
war under Roman rule, but in the day-to-day protection 4 in total), this implies that he ruled Galilee and Perea
of the city’s inhabitants and treasures against bandits. only from 40 CE, whereas the narrative above suggests
This routine exposure of the city’s residents is the motive that he received Antipas’ territories when the latter was
attributed to Agrippa by Josephus. banished to Spain (39 CE; see 2.183 and notes).
1371
1365 Like most Herodian names, this one (beginning
Josephus uses this word (ἀνήνυτος) only in War
with Herod’s mother) was re-used for several genera-
1-2 (also 1.428; 2.471).
1366 tions. This Cyprus was the daughter of Herod’s nephew
Josephus makes the same point again in his fuller
Phasael by his daughter (by Mariamme II) Salampsio
description of Agrippa’s wall at 5.153: the city could
[Shalom-Zion]; cf. Ant. 18.130-31.
not have been taken if Agrippa’s initial project had been 1372
Ant. 19.354 elaborates that their ages were 16, 10,
realized. As it was, even Cestius Gallus in his abortive
and 6; Bernice was married to her uncle, Herod of Chal-
campaign of October 66 was able to take and burn the
cis (as 2.217 above), and the younger ones were betrothed
New City with little difficulty (2.530). This notice is
to other royalty. The later account offers a much fuller
significant also because it supports one of War’s basic
set of connections among the events covered crisply in
themes: the virtue and strength of both the Judeans and this paragraph (raising the question, again, whether it
their capital city (e.g., 1.2-3, 7-8). Even without Agrip- is a précis): following Agrippa’s death, the non-Judean
pa’s wall, the Roman commanders repeatedly recognize Caesareans and Sebastenes took to exuberant celebra-
the difficulty of the task they face (see Introduction); tion, which included the abuse of the daughters’ portraits
Titus is made, after his entry into the city, to marvel at in brothels. Reports of this behavior reached Claudius
its defenses and confess that he could not have taken it (indicating massive unrest, if the story is true), and that
without divine aid (6.409-13). is what prompted him to send Agrippa II—before he was
1367
On Agrippa’s reasons for halting construction of dissuaded by his freedmen [see note to “young” in this
the wall, see the note to “never-ending” in this section. section] and sent Fadus instead.
Agrippa’s death is described most fully in Ant. 19.343-52; 1373
This is the first mention in Josephus’ corpus of
a brief but similar story appears in Acts 12:20-23 (on a Marcus Iulius Agrippa II, a figure of enormous impor-
possible connection with Josephus, see Mason 2003c: tance both in Josephus’ career and in Judean-Roman
163). According to Josephus’ longer version, Agrippa relations in the latter half of the 1st century CE. Agrippa
was beginning the second day of spectacles for the sake II, who will be given the pivotal deliberative speech
of the emperor’s safety, along with his high officials, in against revolt (2.344-407), reportedly engaged in exten-
the theater at Caesarea (see note to “stadium” at 2.172). sive correspondence with Josephus as he was preparing
When the rising sun illuminated the silver weave of his this work, and was among the first people to receive
rich clothing, prompting his flatterers to address him as a copy (Life 362-67). Agrippa was born and educated
though divine, and he failed to reject their praise, he in Rome, in Claudius’ house (Ant. 20.9); he must have
was stricken with overwhelming pain in his heart and been relatively well known to Josephus’ post-70 Roman
book two 181

woman. Since he [Agrippa] was altogether immature,1374 Claudius again made the king- Judea a pro-
doms1375 a province1376 and sent* Cuspius Fadus,1377 thereafter Tiberius Alexander,1378 who vince again;
Cuspius Fadus
and Tiberius
Alexander. Ant.
19.363; 20.100
audience, also because of his sister Berenice’s affair with (1999), in keeping with Tacitus (Hist. 5.9), sees this as
Titus and because of the conspicuous honors he received the beginning of full provincial status. The formulation
(including praetorian insignia) from the Flavians in rec- in Ant. 19.363, that instead of sending Agrippa II to rule,
ognition of his support during the war. See Tacitus, Hist. as he first planned, Claudius dispatched Fadus as prefect
2.2; Suetonius, Tit. 7.1; Dio 65.15.3-5; Juvenal 6.158; “of Judea and of the whole kingdom,” might lend weight
Kokkinos 1998: 318-41. to the idea that this was a new kind of province, much
1374
Greek οὗ παντάπασιν ὄντος νηπίου. Although larger than before and comparable to a kingdom (there-
this literally means that Agrippa was still an “infant,” fore, independent)—except that we cannot rely on such
he was in fact 16, born in 28 CE (Ant. 19.354); but formulations in Josephus. Others have pointed out that
the metaphorical use of the word for a childish or naïve the situation from 44 to 66 appears very much the same
person who lacked political awareness and foresight was as from 6-41, with the Syrian legates from Quadratus to
well established (cf. LSJ). According to the parallel (Ant. Cestius taking fundamental responsibility for order in
19.360-63), Claudius was at first determined that the Judea. See also the next note, on Claudius’ measures to
youth (there called a “child” [παῖς]; see Feldman’s com- keep a legate out of Syria, and the discussion of scholar-
ment ad loc. in LSJ) would succeed his father as king, ship in Bernett 2007: 310-13.
1377
partly to teach a lesson to the Caesareans and Sebastenes Prefect from 44 to 46 CE. Kajanto (1982: 178)
who were abusing the memory of his father and the finds only a couple of other examples of the cogno-
images of his sisters (see previous notes); Claudius men Fadus (it has no meaning as a Latin adjective),
was characteristically dissuaded by his freedmen and which he takes to be an ancient but obsolete first name
friends, who argued that the youth was not equal to such (praenomen). For Cuspius as a family name, see e.g.
responsibilities. The emphasis on Agrippa’s youth in both Cicero, Fam. 13.6a; 16.17.
accounts is ironic, given that a decade later Claudius’ Ant. 19.363-66 relates that Claudius sent Fadus partly
own 16-year-old heir, Nero, would rule the empire (albeit in order to keep the Syrian legate C. Vibius Marsus,
with the crucial aid of Burrus and Seneca)—a story well who had been Agrippa’s enemy, from having an excuse
familiar to Josephus’ audience, and fast approaching in to be present in Judea. (Marsus was also soon replaced
this narrative (2.249-51). Cf. Tacitus’ report of the dis- [Ant. 20.1] by C. Cassius Longinus [cos. 30].) Further,
cussion that followed Nero’s accession, concerning the Fadus came with instructions to punish the Caesareans
fitness of such a youth to rule, and comparisons with and Sebastenes for their abuse of Agrippa’s memory,
Pompey and Octavian (Ann. 13.6). For other reasons why and of his living daughters’ images, by transferring the
Claudius might have wished to end native kingship in auxiliary cohorts in Judea (comprising chiefly men from
Judea, see the note to “Romans” at 2.218. these cities) abroad and replacing them with units from
1375
Plural, perhaps to remind the audience of Agrip- the Syrian legions. The auxiliaries appealed to Claudius,
pa’s growing domains as king: from the NE regions to who allowed them to remain after all; Josephus identifies
Galilee and Perea to Judea proper. them as a significant factor in the revolt 20 years later.
1376 1378
“Again” is slightly misleading, since before Agrip- Tiberius Iulius Alexander (prefect 46-48 CE),
pa’s reign the Roman prefect had governed only Judea though casually introduced here, is an important back-
and Samaria (following Archelaus’ removal in 6 CE: ground player in War; his name was also probably
2.117), whereas Galilee, the NE territories, and Perea known to Josephus’ Roman audience (cf. Barzan 1988).
were under the control of the Herodian tetrarchs Anti- Of Judean ancestry, Alexander was born into one of
pas and Philip. Ant. 19.363 is more accurate in giving the leading families of Alexandria. His father (Tiberius
“Judea and the whole kingdom” as the new procurator’s Iulius?) Alexander was a prosperous magistrate (ala-
(“prefect’s” there) territory. barch—apparently responsible for tax assessment), who
This passage raises the important question of Judea’s surpassed his compatriots, Josephus claims, in ancestry
provincial status from 44 CE. Since War has portrayed and wealth (Ant. 20.100): he paid for massive gold and
the beginning of direct Roman governance in 6 CE as silver plates to cover 9 of Jerusalem’s temple gates (War
the creation of a new province under equestrian procu- 5.201-206) and obliged young Agrippa I’s appeal for a
rators (2.117), this almost incidental remark implies a loan of 200,000 drachmas (Ant. 18.159-60). The father
simple reversion to that status. But we have seen good Alexander was unusually well connected, being report-
reason to think that from 6-41 CE Judea was in fact a edly an old friend of the princeps Claudius and agent
prefecture annexed to Syria, as Josephus also implies in of Claudius’ mother Antonia (Ant. 19.276). His brother,
Antiquities (see note to “province” at 2.117). H. Cotton Tiberius Alexander’s uncle, was the eminent Judean phi-
182 book two

[both] preserved the nation in peace1379 by disturbing nothing of the local customs.1380

losopher and emissary to Gaius, Philo (Ant. 18.259). The Fadus’ tenure, crediting him with foresight and wisdom
new prefect’s younger brother, Marcus Iulius Alexander, (20.5). Fadus immediately and fairly dealt with a border
married into Judean-Herodian royalty as the first husband dispute between Judeans and Philadelphians in Perea,
of Agrippa II’s sister Berenice (Ant. 19.276-77—though effectively checked banditry, and with the Syrian leg-
she remarried by age 16: 19.354). ate permitted a delegation to appeal before Claudius
The prefecture of Judea, which Tiberius Alexander his directive that the high priest’s vestments should be
took up at about age 31, followed an earlier period as kept under Roman control—an appeal that was effective
regional administrator (ἐπιστρατηγός) of the Egyptian because of Agrippa II’s mediation. Note: this suppos-
Thebaid; the prefecture was still only the beginning of a edly “immature” young man (2.220 above) has suddenly
stellar career for this eastern provincial. When Domitius become Claudius’ “friend” and the cause of his favorable
Corbulo entered Parthian territory in 63 CE to escort the decision (Ant. 20.10).
Armenian king Tiridates to Rome for coronation, Alex- As for Alexander: the parallel (Ant. 20.100-103) con-
ander—now a “distinguished Roman knight” according nects two noteworthy occurrences with his governorship.
to Tacitus (inlustris eques Romanus, Ann. 15.28)—had a (a) During “the great famine” in Judea, the proselyte
place of honor in his entourage. Only 3 years later (War Queen Helena of Adiabene (the story of her family’s
2.309) he reached the highest position then open to an conversion having dominated the preceding narrative,
equestrian: the prefecture of Egypt, which he held for 20.17-96) bought up supplies of Egyptian grain for dis-
4 years (66-70 CE). This turned out to be an extraordi- tribution; on this famine, cf. Acts 11:28-30, which how-
narily eventful period. Soon after arriving, he used his ever dates it within the first 3 years of Claudius’ reign,
legions (III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana) and other before the death of Agrippa (cf. Levick 2001: 179). (b)
forces to suppress a riot for which he held the Alexan- After they were arraigned (or simply “brought in”) on
drian Judeans chiefly responsible; the number of dead unspecified crimes, Alexander ordered the crucifixion
reportedly reached the tens of thousands (War 2.490-98). of Iacob (James) and Simon, sons of Judas the Galilean
Within just 4 weeks of Nero’s death in June 68, Alexan- (cf. 2.118 above).
1380
der published a lengthy edict reassuring the populace of See the previous note for details. This is an inter-
his good intentions and hopes for the future under Galba esting choice of words (οἳ µηδὲν παρακινοῦντες τῶν
(OGIS 669; ET Sherk 1988: no. 80); he seems to have ἐπιχωρίων ἐθῶν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὸ ἔθνος διεφύλαξαν), given
recognized both Otho and Vitellius with similar alacrity Josephus’ famous remark at Ant. 20.100 that Tiberius
(Turner 1954: 61). Alexander’s father surpassed his son in piety toward God,
But his enduring fame arose from his persuasion of “for he [the Judean procurator] did not continue with the
the Alexandrian legions to switch allegiance to Vespa- ancestral customs” (τοῖς γὰρ πατρίοις οὐκ ἐνέµεινεν
sian—on July 1, 69 (War 4.616-18, though reversing the οὗτος ἔθεσιν). Although scholars routinely take this as
otherwise accepted order of Judea and then Alexandria: if it were a factual statement of Alexander’s “apostasy
Suetonius, Vesp. 6; Tacitus, Hist. 2.79; cf. P. Fouad 8 and from Judaism,” sometimes reasoning that his Roman
Sherk 1988: no. 81)—a move that precipitated the other career must have required fundamental compromises, it
eastern and northern legions’ declarations of allegiance. is difficult to see how he differed in that respect from
Those in turn made possible the Flavian bid for power the Herodians with whom he was closely associated,
and the eventual senatorial recognition of Vespasian’s many of whom were educated in imperial houses. Given
claim on Dec. 22. Within a year of his legions’ declara- our lack of information, the range of possibilities for
tion, Alexander was in Judea—now an experienced man explaining Josephus’ remark is considerable: Was it an
in his 50s, reportedly Titus’ “most esteemed friend for announced program of defection (cf. the apostle Paul
loyalty and wisdom” (War 5.45)— advising the 30-year- in Phil 3:2-11; Gal 1:13-14; 3:28)? Or the reverse of
old as prefect of all Roman forces for the campaign of what Tacitus complains about, concerning Roman defec-
70 CE (5.45; OGIS 586). There he participated in Titus’ tors, at Hist. 5.4? The conspicuous adoption of Greek or
council deliberating the fate of the temple (6.237, 242). Roman customs? An observed laxity in certain aspects
Soon after the Flavian triumph, Alexander was granted of diet (cf. Life 13-14) or other customs (perhaps much
another equestrian “plum” in Rome—one of the two as immigrant families often regret their children’s depar-
prefectures of the Praetorian Guard, perhaps alongside ture from “traditional ways”)? Or was it perhaps only a
his young friend Titus (P. Hibeh 215). It may indeed have single incident that Josephus interpreted as insufficiently
been his career path that established this post as a step supportive of Judean tradition? These are only a few
up from governing Egypt (Turner 1954: 62-64). options. Josephus’ language does not seem as strong as
1379
In Ant. 20.2-14 Josephus is similarly pleased with his verdict on the descendants of Herod’s son Alexander,
book two 183

221 After these events the Herod ruling Chalcis as king1381 also expired*,1382 having left
behind two children from his niece Bernice1383—Bernicianus as well as Hyrcanus1384—
and from his previous [wife] Mariamme,1385 Aristobulus.1386 A different brother of his
[Agrippa’s] also died, a private citizen [named] Aristobulus, having left behind a daughter,
Iotape.1387 222 So these men were, as I said before,1388 children of Aristobulus, the son of
Herod: Aristobulus as well as Alexander had been sons born to Herod by Mariamme;1389
their father did away with them.1390 The family line of Alexander reigned as kings of
Claudius
Greater Armenia.1391 appoints
(12.1) 223 After the end of Herod who had been ruling Chalcis,1392 Claudius appointed* Agrippa II
Agrippa son of Agrippa1393 to his uncle’s kingdom.1394 As for the rest of the province:1395 over Chalcis;
Cumanus
procurator. Ant.
20.103
who “immediately at birth abandoned concern for the Nat. 1.6a; 2.226; 5.83, 102; 6.24-25 Frontinus, Strat.
local [traditions] of the Judeans, exchanging them for the 2.1.14, 2.4; Tacitus, Ann. 13.7). Armenia proper was well
ancestral customs of the Greeks” (Ant. 18.141). It would known as the historic flashpoint of the conflict between
be most interesting to know how Alexander would have Rome and Parthia. In the decade before Josephus was
understood Josephus’ charge. See Étienne 2000. writing, the situation had been provisionally resolved
1381
See 2.217 and notes. with the agreement of the Persians that Tiridates the
1382
Ant. 20.104 dates Herod of Chalcis’ death to the Armenian king would come to Rome to receive his royal
8th year of Claudius. Since Claudius’ reign began on emblems from Nero (66 CE). See Introduction and Taci-
January 24 or 25, 41 CE (and note Josephus’ precise tus, Ann. 15.29.
knowledge of Claudius’ dates—2.248), his 8th year was The Alexander in question is the son of Herod and
from January 24/25, 48, to January 24, 49 CE. Mariamme, brother of the Aristobulus whose heirs have
1383
Sister of Agrippa II: see 2.217 and notes. just been featured here. (That Josephus mentions his
1384
These 3 persons appear in Josephus only here and family here without elaboration suggests again that
in the parallel (Ant. 20.104). he may be abridging an account like Ant. 18.139-40).
1385
See Ant. 18.134: this Mariamme was Herod the Although executed by Herod (1.550-51), he has reap-
Great’s grand-daughter: daughter of his daughter Olym- peared in bk. 2 as the object of imitation by Pseudalex-
pias and Joseph, the son of Herod’s brother Joseph. ander (2.101-110) and been recalled as the first husband
1386
At 2.252 this Aristobulus will be given the king- of Glaphyra (daughter of Archelaus, king of Cappado-
dom of Lesser Armenia by Nero (cf. Ant. 20.158); at cia), chastising his widow for subsequent marriages
7.226 he may be the “king” of Chalcidice who assists (2.114-16). Although this is the last appearance of his
the legate of Syria in confronting Antiochus of Com- family in War, Ant. 18.139-40 (cf. 17.12-14) clarifies
magene (on charges of rebellion in alliance with Parthia). that he had two sons: Alexander and Tigranes (a historic
According to Ant. 18.136-37, when Philip the tetrarch name for Armenian kings). The latter became king of
died childless (see 2.181-82) Aristobulus married his Armenia but was brought to Rome on charges (Tacitus,
widow, Salome, and this pair produced 3 children: Herod, Ann. 6.40); the son of the former, also named Tigranes,
Agrippa, and Aristobulus. was sent by Nero in 60 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 14.20) to
1387
Ant. 18.135 identifies this Iotape, daughter of assume the Armenian throne with the assistance of Cor-
Aristobulus and Iotape (herself daughter of Sampsig- bulo (14.25-26). Tacitus describes him as having become
eramus, king of Emesa), as a deaf-mute. weak and servile through long years in Rome, in spite
1388
Not in so many words. Agrippa was introduced of his Cappadocian ancestry (through Glaphyra). Perhaps
as Aristobulus’ son at 2.178. At 2.217 we met Herod for the same sort of reasons that faced the royal family of
(king of Chalcis), as Agrippa’s brother. The 3rd brother Adiabene in Josephus’ story (Ant. 20.75-77), this branch
has appeared only here. of the family now based in Armenia “immediately at
1389
Cf. 1.435, 452, 467. These two sons were named birth abandoned concern for the local [traditions] of the
after her grandfather and father, respectively (1.432). Judeans, exchanging them for the ancestral customs of
1390
War 1.451-52, 550-51. Josephus’ refrain that Herod the Greeks” (Ant. 18.141).
1392
did away with these sons (2.101, 114, 178) does more Apparently in 48 CE: see 2.221 and notes.
1393
than simply identify them; it is a poignant reminder of Marcus Iulius Agrippa II, great-grandson of Herod
Herod’s succession problem (his cruelty itself not being the Great. See the note to “Agrippa” at 2.220.
1394
a significant feature of War, in contrast to Antiquities). Thus, Agrippa became king of Chalcis in or soon
1391
As distinct from “Lesser Armenia” (see 2.252). after 48/49 CE, the year of his uncle Herod’s death.
The language of Armenia Maior and Minor was well Schürer-Vermes (1.472 n. 6) cite m. RH 1.1 to argue
known to Josephus’ audience (Augustus, RG 5; Pliny, that Agrippa, as a Jewish king, began his regnal years
184 book two

Cumanus1396 succeeded* to the procuratorship1397 after [Tiberius] Alexander.

in Nisan (April-May); they count backwards from the secondarily the territory itself. Although he is not being
later notice (2.284) that war broke out in his 17th year perfectly clear, Josephus may have in mind the portfo-
and Nero’s 12th (Oct. 13, 65, to Oct. 12, 66) to argue that lio of Aristobulus’ descendants Agrippa I and Herod of
Agrippa’s 1st year—his accession as king of Chalcis— Chalcis; having mentioned what Agrippa II received from
must have begun with Nisan, 50 CE. Kokkinos (1998: this, he now returns to the Roman governor’s share.
1396
391), observing that Ant. 20.138 gives Agrippa 4 years as Ventidius Cumanus (his cognomen means “man
king before receiving Philip’s former territories in 53 CE of Cumae,” the city in Campania—a cognomen attested
(cf. 2.247 below), concludes that he must have received only a few times [Kajanto 1982: 191]) governed Judea
Chalcis by 49 to allow 4 completed years. Schürer- from 48 until 52 CE, when the Syrian legate C. Ummid-
Vermes (1.472 n. 7) do not insist on the completion of ius Durmius Quadratus ordered him to Rome, to give an
4 years, arguing that if he received the new territory near account before Claudius (2.244-45). Tacitus, who gives
the end of 53, having begun to rule in the year starting the nomen gentilicium (Ann. 12.54), thinks that Pallas’
Nisan 50, that would suffice. If Kokkinos were correct brother Felix (on whom his narrative centers at this point),
in his argument that Josephus’ indication of the “12 th whom Josephus will introduce as the replacement for
year of Nero” for the outbreak of the war was a mistake Cumanus (2.247), was already governing Samaria while
for “11th year,” so that the war broke out in 65, then 49 Cumanus was in charge of “the nation of Galileans.”
would be Agrippa’s first year. The climactic episode of Cumanus’ career in Josephus’
The dating eras of Agrippa II’s relatively abundant account, the conflict between Judeans and Samarians fol-
extant coinage, which begins to appear only in the mid- lowing the murder of a Galilean pilgrim, which resulted
60s (cf. Lönnqvist 1997: 432), have become a topic of in his recall and banishment (2.232-46), can be explained
vigorous scholarly debate. The standard theory since the by Tacitus as a deep-rooted national conflict exacerbated
late 19th century was that Agrippa dated his era from by these competitive governors, each championing his
two points: 56 and—mainly—61 CE (Luther 1910: 64; own subject populace and receiving plunder from them.
Meshorer 1982: 2.65-73). But Kokkinos (1998: 398) That account is so completely different from Josephus’,
has, with apparent success (cf. Kushnir-Stein 2002: 124; in which Cumanus takes the side of the Samarians
C. P. Jones 2002: 115), redated the later era to 60 and against the Judeans (below), and it seems so implau-
Agrippa’s renaming of Caesarea Philippi as Neronias. sible that Cumanus should ever have played champion
Although scholars have occasionally argued for 49 CE of the Galileans, that most scholars take Tacitus to be
as the starting-point of the earlier era (recently Kush- mistaken—and sometimes try to explain how the error
nir-Stein 2002: 127-31)—to Agrippa’s accession over arose (Smallwood 1959).
Chalcis, described here—Kokkinos has recently brought Aberbach (1949-50), reluctant to dismiss Tacitus out
compelling arguments against that case. He proposes of hand (finding it inconceivable that at least two of his
(2003: 172-79) that, although 5 accession dates appear principal claims did not come from authentic sources),
in the narratives concerning Agrippa II, as his territories saves his evidence by turning it on his head: he has
shifted over time, only those of Tiberias (55 CE) and Cumanus first arriving in Judea as cavalry commander
Neronias (60 CE) were employed retrospectively from (on the basis of Suetonius, Claud. 28: Claudius gave
the mid-60s for his coinage eras—and Chalcis did not Felix command of cohorts and cavalry as well as Judea),
count for this purpose. See now Bernett 2007: 318-22. then being appointed governor of Galilee (explain-
1395
If “province” here meant territory, this (τῆς δ᾿ ing Josephus’ failure to mention the “condominium”
ἄλλης ἐπαρχίας) would be a curious phrase, for (in arrangement by his lack of interest in Galilee’s politics
Josephus’ account) Cumanus succeeded to the same before 66), then succeeding him for the whole province.
territory that had been governed by Fadus and Alexan- Although this theory and the reconstruction that Aber-
der (2.221). Intriguingly, Tacitus claims that Cumanus bach builds on it have their appealing points, the number
received only part of the province (Ann. 12.54: cui pars of suppositions involved renders it no more than an inter-
provinciae habebatur), Galilee, whereas Felix had con- esting possibility. Cf. also Saddington 1992. Another
trol of Samaria. This raises the possibility that Josephus (mere) possibility is that Felix arrived in Samaria, as a
is here following a source like that used by Tacitus, partly distinct jurisdiction, when Quadratus first began
which he, however, rewrites except for this phrase. (See his investigation of the strife in 51, such that he was
further the next note.) But ἐπαρχία has much the same in place there for only a short time before Cumanus’
range of meaning as Latin provincia (cf. βασιλεία): in removal (so Barrett 1996: 125).
1397
the first instance the government of the ruler in question, This formula of succession to the procuratorship
book two 185

Under him disorders1398 began, and again there was a [great] loss1399 of Judeans. 224 Auxiliary
When a mob had come together into Hierosolyma for the Festival of the Unleavened1400 soldier exposes
himself at
and the Roman cohort1401 had positioned itself above the colonnade of the temple 1402 Passover. Ant.
(armed men always guard the festivals closely, so that the mob that has assembled will 20.106
not attempt anything subversive),1403 one of the soldiers pulled up his clothing, stooped
over disgracefully, turned his rear end away towards the Judeans, and emitted a sound in
keeping with his posture.1404
225 At this the whole mob became indignant1405 and kept yelling at1406 Cumanus to
punish the soldier;1407 but those who were less sober1408 among the youths1409 and those

(διαδέχοµαι + ἐπιτροπή; cf. Latin succedo in impe- where celebrants often end up slaughtered with their
rium, etc.) appears only in Josephus among extant Greek animal sacrifices (cf. 2.30 and note to “festival”). At
authors: cf. also War 2.271, 354; Ant. 18.170. The paral- 2.254-55, the political assassins known as sicarii appear,
lel (Ant. 20.102-3) has a double succession: first, Anan- and Josephus claims that the festivals were their métier.
ias succeeds Joseph as high priest; in the next sentence See also 2.42 (“indignation”), 73, 280 (under Florus),
(linked by δέ), Cumanus succeeds Tiberius Alexander. 425, 514-17; 4.401-2; Colautti 2002.
Since the high-priestly succession is a major theme in According to Ant. 20.106-7, Cumanus followed the
Josephus (e.g., Horsley 1986; Thoma 1989), it is possible custom of previous procurators of stationing a unit
that he adopts this language here from a larger canvass (τάξις) of soldiers on the colonnades. Exactly how
of the sort that underlies Ant. 18-20. large this unit was is unclear. In classical Greece the
1398
See the note to this key term at 1.4. The point term had denoted the large unit contributed by a tribe.
there about the close correlation of θόρυβοι with War ’s The 1st-century BCE writer Asclepiodotus first remarks
Leitmotif, στάσις (civil strife), is illustrated by the fact on the differences among τάξεις according to number,
that the parallel to this passage (Ant. 20.105) describes leadership, training, etc. (Tact. 1.4), but then specifies a
the situation under Cumanus as στάσις. technical meaning (viz., a company of 128) in a series
1399
This (φθορά) is becoming a significant word in of increasing possibilities (2.8-10). Here in War , at any
War ’s lexicon of disaster; see the note at 2.51. rate, an entire cohort is indicated in the text.
1400 1404
That is, Passover. See the note to this phrase at A remarkably elaborate description: the parallel
2.10. (Ant. 20.108) says that on the 4th day of the festival the
1401
See the notes to “cohort” at 2.11, “Sebastenes” soldier uncovered and exhibited his genitals (no sounds
at 2.52, and “standards” at 2.169. This is the auxiliary are mentioned).
1405
cohort permanently based in the Antonia fortress (5.244), See the note to “indignation” at 2.29. Judean
recruited chiefly from Samaria and Caesarea. Given the indignation (ἀγανάκτησις) at the hands of Roman gov-
regular appearance of a tribune or “commander of 1,000” ernors is a significant theme of War .
1406
(χιλίαρχος, 2.11, 244; Acts 23:31-38; 22:23-23:30) This language recalls the outrages under Pilate
among the governor’s auxiliary forces, this unit may (also τὸ πλῆθος, ἀγανάκτησις [here the cognate verb],
sometimes have been a double cohort (cohors milliaria) καταβοάω) and more generally the growing sense of
of 1,000 soldiers, though the language at 2.332 below Judean indignation (ἀγανάκτησις): cf. 2.29, 42, 170,
implies that all Judea’s cohorts were interchangeable and 175, 293. The collocation described here is not com-
of the same size. The dating of 1,000-strong cohorts in mon in other authors, even the seemingly natural pair of
Judea has been a matter of scholarly contention, how- indignation and yelling (cf. Plutarch, Cic. 16.3).
1407
ever; see the discussion in Roth 1991: 128-40. The parallel (Ant. 20.108) has the whole crowd
1402
Josephus will explain at 5.243-45 that the cohort express rage, insisting that it was not they, but God, who
stationed in the Antonia, which soared above the temple had been insulted.
1408
mount at its NW corner, was provided with steps lead- The imagery of drunkenness for portraying politi-
ing down to both the northern and western colonnades, cal opponents, perceived as behaving with dangerous,
giving the soldiers exclusive domination (in principle) of unhibited carelessness of consequences for the body
this wide observation tier, more than 40 ft. (12.5 m.)— politic, was well worn (cf. Cicero, Phil. 2.27; 5.24 on
allowing for the cedar panelling atop the columns—above Marc Antony; Cat. 2.10 on the followers of Catiline
the crowds; see the note to “colonnades” at 2.48. [vino languidi]). Josephus uses such language fairly
1403
This notice anticipates the balance of the work, often, sometimes as a literal comment on lack of self-
where indeed the festivals (especially Passover) appear control, sometimes metaphorically: War 4.242, 651 [of
as times of great political upheaval and danger, and the Roman Aulus Vitellius]; 5.565-66; 6.196; Ant. 4.144;
186 book two

of the nation who were factious1410 by nature were advancing into a fight: they grabbed
rocks and kept throwing them at the soldiers.1411 226 Cumanus, becoming alarmed that
there might be a rush against himself1412 by the entire citizenry,1413 summoned* more
armed troops.1414 While they were pouring onto the colonnades, an uncontrollable fear
attacked* the Judeans; they turned away from the temple and kept trying to escape into
the city.1415 227 But such was the violence that occurred as they were being pressed to-
gether1416 around the exits1417 that, having been trampled and battered by one another,1418

1413
5.149, 345; 6.266; 13.426; 17.130, 254, 309; 19.230, This (ὁ λαός) is a much more dignified term for
236; Apion 1.46. the populace, or the people in political assembly, than
1409
The parallel (Ant. 20.108) does not single out the Josephus’ more customary τὸ πλῆθος (the mob, rabble):
youths for rock-throwing. Anticipated by the young men see the note at 2.1. The former occurs only 39 times
who pulled down the golden eagle from Herod’s temple in War, against some 448 occurrences of πλῆθος. Our
(1.649, 651)—on whom Josephus’ judgment remains Judean narrator extracts a modicum of respect from the
notably ambiguous—these less than sober νέοι establish Roman governor for the Judean populace.
1414
a prominent theme in War : the youthful “hotheads” (οἱ There is an air of unreality about this notice.
θερµότεροι) who rush into conflict with unchecked emo- Cumanus has a cohort stationed in Jerusalem, and “the
tion, still lacking sufficient cultivation to train them in Roman cohort” is already positioned on the colonnades
moderation. Such figures, who also play important roles (2.224). These new armed soldiers arrive quickly, it
in Josephus’ models Thucydides and Polybius, contribute seems. Where have they come from? The slightly dif-
greatly to the build-up to war (cf. 1.117; 2.286, 290, ferent account in Ant. 20.106, 110 may be intended as
303, 346, 409); they also play a prominent role in the a correction to careless writing here. There Josephus
Antiquities (e.g., as unworthy successors of estimable emphasizes that Cumanus first ordered “one company”
fathers: Ant. 1.53; 4.131-44; 6.33-34; 8.209; Life 12, 36, (or unit) onto the colonnades, so that after seeing the
80, 126-29). See Rajak 1983: 93; Mader 2000: 69-72, developing unrest he may now direct “the whole army”
who notes e.g. Thucydides 1.42.1, 72.1, 80.1; 2.8.1, 11.1, (presumably, the Jerusalem cohort) to assemble in arms
20.2, 21.2; 6.18.6; on Polybius, Eckstein 1990: 192-94; at the Antonia.
1415
also Aristotle, Rhet. 2.12.3-16 (1389a-b); Eyben 1993: Since the Antonia fortress and the soldier-filled
1-66. colonnade stood to the N, the vast mob trying to move
1410
Or “agents of sedition/civil strife”; see note at quickly would leave the temple complex for the city by
2.91. one of 3 main exits: (a) the large western walkway over
1411
As Cumanus’ response makes clear, rock-throwing “Wilson’s arch,” which led to the Upper City, or all the
was no trivial matter. In this part of the world, stoning way to Herod’s palace; (b) the two sets of steps lead-
was a traditional form of murder or execution (cf. Ant. ing from the Court of Gentiles in the southern part of
4.202 with Feldman’s notes in BJP 3; John 8:1-11). At the temple platform via the underground vaults to the
5.541 Josephus himself will be hit by a rock thrown monumental staircase in the S (by which most pilgrims
from the city wall and fall unconscious; some will think entered); or (c) by the Royal Stoa on the SW corner,
him dead. over “Robinson’s Arch,” down the monumental staircase
1412
The fuller parallel (Ant. 20.108-10) significantly to street level and the Lower City. Other possibilities
modifies this image of Cumanus. Whereas here he seems were what we now call Warren’s and Barclay’s Gates,
concerned only with his personal safety, in the later ver- much smaller doors leading from the underground vaults
sion the Judean mob first raises the tension by suggesting to street level along the W side of the temple retaining
that he had instructed the rude soldier. He takes offense wall.
1416
at the insult, but still calls for moderation. It is only when Of the 17 occurrences of συνωθέω in Josephus,
the unyielding mob increases its abuse that he summons 15 are in War (1-6), often used of the situation envisaged
the larger force. Even then, there is no actual violence: here: victims being crowded or herded together and fac-
it is the mob’s perception that they are under attack that ing death (1.90, 352, 383; 2.496; 4.312, 429; 6.161).
1417
leads to the rush and many deaths. Josephus is careful See the note to “city” in 2.226. The first two exits
there to blame the single soldier who created the problem in particular were much narrower on the temple side than
(Ant. 20.112). Whatever the historical facts may have in their outside exits; in all 3 cases, heights and long
been, these different accounts by the same author show staircases were involved, which would render an urgent
how the same basic events can be presented quite differ- movement of a massive crowd extremely hazardous.
ently with respect to actors’ motives and aims.
book two 187

upwards of 30,0001419 died: the festival turned into mourning for the nation as a whole,
lamentation in each household.1420
(12.2) 228 Another disorder,1421 of the bandit type,1422 compounded1423 this calam- Imperial
ity.1424 For on the public highway near Bethoro1425 bandits1426 struck at Stephan, a certain slave robbed;
Cumanus’ pu-
nishment. Ant.
20.113
1418
Judeans trampling one another in flight recalls the ficult reading” were preferred as Josephus’ more likely
second episode involving Pilate (2.177). original, we would need to conclude that he meant some-
1419
So MSS PAM and Latin, also Eusebius (Hist. thing like what is translated.
1422
eccl. 2.19). MSS LVRC, perhaps finding the high num- See the note at 2.56.
1423
ber difficult, say “more than 10,000.” The larger number Greek µεταλαµβάνω. MSS LVRC have the pres-
is massive relative to the estimated population of the ent tense; Niese follows the imperfect of MSS PAM,
city, even at festival times (perhaps 60-150,000)—based translated here. The verb has 3 main possibilities,
on the physical constraints of space within and around according to the varying senses of the preposition in
the ancient walls; cf. Jeremias 1969: 27, 77-84 [30,000 conjunction with the root (“take, receive”), thus: “partici-
normally, 180,000 with pilgrims]; Broshi 1978 [80,000 pate, partake, share in” (usually with genitive), “receive
for normal pre-revolt Jerusalem], 1979 [up to 1,000,000 something after [someone else had it]”—especially the
for all of ancient Palestine]. Although Josephus claims rule, government (thus: “succeed to . . .”), or “substitute,
that the population during Passover approached 3 million change.” None of these fits perfectly, though the paral-
(given vast numbers of pilgrims; War 6.422-28), that lel (Ant. 20.113) indicates a succession of disorders and
figure is impossible. Further, Josephus often changes modern translators agree with that sense. The meaning
his numbers in the retelling, undermining whatever con- “succession” makes more sense with an aorist verb (Poly-
fidence we might otherwise have: Ant. 20.112 says that bius 5.40.6; 10.40.11; 18.2.2) than with the imperfect (or
the number of dead from this incident was reckoned at present) here, and it should apply to something positive
20,000. See also 2.261 below and the note to “30,000” “received” after another owner—hard to say of “calam-
there. For salient cautions about casualty figures in even ity.” My translation highlights the sense of succeeding
the most scrupulous ancient historian, Thucydides, see disorders, one exchanged for another, which have a share
Rubincam 1991. in the growing sense of calamity under Cumanus.
1420 1424
Greek γενέσθαι δὲ τὴν ἑορτὴν πένθος µὲν ὅλῳ Greek συµφορά. See the note to this key theme-
τῷ ἔθνει θρῆνον δὲ καθ᾿ ἑκάστην οἰκίαν. This poetic word at War 1.9 (there plural) and 2.86.
1425
turn of phrase exploits a natural and common pairing of Josephus has Βαιθωρώ here, Βαιθώρων at 2.516,
πένθος (mourning) and θρῆνος (dirge, lament): Eurip- Βεθώρα at 2.521, Βεθώρων at 2.546, and Βητχώρα at
ides, Hel. 166; Rhes. 977; Isocrates, Plat. 47; Plato, Ant. 8.152, where he credits King Solomon with build-
Resp. 395e; Aristotle, Rhet. 1370b; 1 Macc. 1:27; Dio- ing the site (cf. 1 Kgs 9:17; 2 Chron 8:5; but 1 Chron
nysius, Ant. rom. 2.19.2 (with reference to festivals); 7:24). This variety reflects in part the difficulty of
Plutarch, Aem. Paul. 35.3; Mor. 110e, 112b, 114c-d; in representing the vowels of the Hebrew construct ‫בית‬.
poetry these are sometimes used in synonymous paral- Beit-Horon comprised two settlements, Upper (Beit Ur
lelism (LXX Amos 8:10; Tob. 2:6). Particularly relevant ‘el-foqa/fauqa) and Lower (Beit Ur ‘el-tachta, e-tahta),
are LXX Amos 8:10 (cf. Tob. 2:6): [the Lord says] “I the former hilltop town lying roughly 10 miles (16 km)
will transform all your festivals into mourning and all NW of Jerusalem, as the crow flies (about 19 km by
your songs into lamentation” (καὶ µεταστρέψω τὰς road) on the main road (via Lydda and Antipatris) to
ἑορτὰς ὑµῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πάσας τὰς ᾠδὰς ὑµῶν εἰς the coastal plain.
θρῆνον). Josephus uses the pair 3 times in the War (also Beit-Horon was a natural transition point between
2.6; 5.31-32): along with many other terms in the seman- the Judean hill country and the plain to the W (also 2
tic range of “mourning, lament,” this contributes much Chr 25:13; Judith 4.4). Of the 8 possible routes from
to an atmosphere that blends the tragic and the biblical- Joppa to Jerusalem, this was the shortest (at 60 km)
prophetic, especially Jeremianic (see Introduction). and a natural option for armies on the march. It offered
1421
See the note to this word at 2.223. The position other advantages: this pass was the only steep defile on
of the word translated “another” (ἄλλος) is a problem. the route, whereas others had difficult terrain at several
MSS PAM place it first in the phrase, meaning “another points. Between Upper Beit-Horon and Jerusalem the
bandit-related disorder”; but the previous disorder did road traversed a fairly flat plateau, and the upper town
not feature bandits. Perhaps for this reason, MS M and offered excellent visibility in all directions (Har-El 1981:
Latin omit the word. MSS LVRC place it between the 14, 16; Gichon 1981: 51).
adjective and noun, permitting the translation here: this Yet the pass itself was a notoriously vulnerable bottle-
next disorder involved bandits. Even if the “more dif- neck for armies on the march. Joining the upper and
188 book two

Soldier destroys slave of Caesar,1427 and plundered the baggage in his care.1428 229 Cumanus sent around
law scroll, is [soldiers?] and directed that the detainees1429 from the nearby villages be brought back to
punished. Ant.
20.115 him; [he was] complaining that they had not pursued the bandits1430 and arrested them.1431
Then one of the soldiers, having found the sacred law in a certain village, ripped up the
volume and tossed it into a fire.1432 230 And the Judeans, as if their entire countryside
had been incinerated,1433 were devastated: as if being drawn together by some instrument
(their reverence for the divine),1434 by one proclamation,1435 they all1436 ran together1437 to

lower settlements was a 3.3 km road, quite narrow in named official in the service of Agrippa II; since Jose-
places, that dropped about about 225 m. (740 ft; Har-El phus will then be “general” of the northern theater, the
1981: 16; cf. Bar-Kochva 1976: topographical map on p. incident will be a test of his leadership.
1429
14). Exposed sections show that it was cut into bedrock, Greek τοὺς δεσµώτας means literally “the bound
with steps in places for traction against the peril of the ones” and is commonly rendered “prisoners.” That trans-
ridges on either side. A rabbinic story vividly conveys lation may, however, suggest inmates of a prison in the
the narrowness of the route: “if two camels met each modern sense, a category without parallel in the Roman
other while on the ascent to Beit-Horon: if they both world. See note at 2.4.
1430
ascend [at the same time] both may tumble down [into Ridding the province of bandits, or keeping them
the valley]; but if [they ascend] after each other, both can in check, was one of the chief responsibilities of all gov-
go up [safely]” (b. Sanh. 32b). The first mention of the ernors (as it had been Herod’s first task: Ant. 14.159)—an
site in the Bible (Josh 10:10-11) is the scene of Joshua’s essential component of maintaining the peace (Ulpian,
defeat of the Amorites “while they were descending the Dig. 1.18.13.pr.). Isaac (1984: 180) points out that the
slope at Beit-Horon.” Centuries later, Judah the Has- establishment of a veterans’ colony at Ptolemais between
monean is credited with an early victory over Antiochus 52 and 54 CE, and the construction of a military-grade
IV’s general Seron at the same place, as the Judeans road between there and Antioch (though not mentioned
pursued the Syrians “down the descent of Beit-Horon to by Josephus), clearly indicate the Roman concern with
the plain,” a victory that put fear into the non-Judeans of controlling unrest and banditry in the province. He
the region (1 Macc 3:16-25). The upper and lower towns argues in general that the placement of Roman installa-
were natural places for military rendezvous or even for- tions in Judea had more to do with banditry than with
tification (cf. 2 Chr 8:5; 1 Macc 7:39; 9:50). frontier defense.
1431
In mentioning the site here, Josephus anticipates his The awkwardness of this sentence, which seems
dramatic story (perhaps already known in general to his to assume the prior existence of detainees, whose origin
audience) of the defeat of the Syrian legate Cestius Gal- has not been described, may suggest again that Jose-
lus’ retreating forces, a watershed in the Judeans’ move phus is quickly condensing the longer account that will
to war (2.542-56), at this location. By contrast, the paral- be given more space in Ant. 20. There (20.114) it is
lel (Ant. 20.113), which lacks the sequel about Cestius, elaborated that Cumanus ordered soldiers to plunder the
simply says that the present robbery occurred about 100 surrounding villages and bring him their most eminent
stadia (12.5 miles, 20 km) from Jerusalem—a roughly men, bound, so that he could exact vengeance.
1432
accurate distance for Lower Beit-Horon, though the site The parallel (20.115) has the soldier find “the
is not named. laws of Moses” and rip the volume in two, out where
1426
In confirmation of the points made in the note to everyone can see, while he screams blasphemies and
this word at 2.56, the parallel identifies these “bandits” profanities. There is no fire there. Josephus thus appears
as “some of the seditious people bent on revolution.” to indulge his authorial freedom.
1427 1433
I.e., of Claudius, the current Caesar. For the See the note at 2.58.
1434
title, see the note at 2.181. Although there was nothing Or “superstition.” Greek δεισιδαιµονία has var-
approaching a modern civil service in the early empire, ious possible connotations. Josephus often seems to
Claudius’ slaves (like his freedmen) had remarkably large exploit this ambiguity (see 1.113 and the note to “super-
responsibilities and authority for men of their social sta- stition” at 2.174).
1435
tus, looking after his financial interests throughout the This strong emphasis on the spontaneous unity
provinces. Many Greeks (as this man’s name indicates and concerted action of the Judeans is characteristic of
he was) were highly educated people who had the mis- War: see note to “close order” at 2.12. These observa-
fortune of finding themselves in Roman slavery. tions are absent from the Antiquities parallel (20.116).
1428 1436
This episode anticipates a later one (War 2.595- Ant. 20.116: “many.”
1437
609), when some young men from Dabaritta in S Galilee See the note at 2.43: a formulaic reponse to
plunder the baggage (as here ἀποσκευή) of a Greek- Roman outrages in War 2.
book two 189

Cumanus in Caesarea,1438 begging1439 that he not leave unpunished the one who had thus
committed outrage against God and their law.1440 231 He [Cumanus] deemed it best,1441
since the mob was not resting1442 unless it found satisfaction, to bring forward the soldier.
He directed* that he be led off to his death1443 through the middle of those who were lay-
ing the charges. And the Judeans withdrew.1444
(12.3) 232 And now came* an engagement1445 between Galileans and Samarians.1446 Samarians
For at a village called Gema,1447 which lies in the Great Plain of Samaria,1448 while many murder Galilean
en route to
Judeans were going up1449 for the festival1450 a certain Galilean was taken [and killed]*.1451 Jerusalem. Ant.
20.118

1438
Coastal Caesarea was the governor’s capital and a branch of life called “religion,” precisely for the latter
headquarters; see the note to “Caesarea” at 2.16 and to reason it may be useful to remember that the conflict
“residence” at 2.171. here is more ethnic-tribal, political, and/or social than
1439
All the language here (rushing to the governor in “religious”; at any rate Josephus does not mention any
Caesarea, the stress on unity, the Judeans’ “superstition,” cultic or “religious” issues in what follows. On the long-
begging him) recalls the first Pilate episode (2.170-74). standing animosity between Judeans and Samarians, see
1440
Greek εἰς τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν νόµον αὐτῶν Ant. 9.290-91; 1 Macc 3:10; Luke 10:29-37; John 4:9;
ἐξυβρίσαντα. This is characteristically Josephan lan- 8:48.
guage, not much attested elsewhere. For committing This particular incident, which will occupy several
outrage against God, see Ant. 8.265, 299; 9.196; against paragraphs, seems to have been more widely known as
fortune, War 2.184 (see note to “abused fortune”), 250; the defining event in the career of Claudius’ procurator
5.120. Cumanus. Even Tacitus knows about it (Ann. 12.54),
1441
Ant. 20.117 has the governor consult his friends though he seems wrongly to have inferred from the
(presumably the few closer colleagues in his administra- depth of the conflict and the separate embassies sent to
tion, not the Judean élite) for advice, which persuades Rome as a result that two Roman procurators, Felix and
him that the soldier must be dealt with. Cumanus, were championing the causes of Samaria and
1442
Greek οὐ γὰρ ἠρέµει τὸ πλῆθος. For similar Galilee, respectively. That is highly implausible (see note
phrases, which are characteristic of Josephus (hardly to “Cumanus” at 2.223).
1447
attested in other writers), see 1.227; 2.9, 40; 3.211; Ant. The MSS are completely confused here, each giv-
8.265. One would expect the future infinitive ἠρεµήσειν ing a different version of the name with gibberish letters
here, and that is found in MSS LVRC and Latin. Niese forming word fragments. Niese, having to print some-
follows PAM here, a reading that is also preferable as the thing, gives the reading of MS L, roughly supported by
one more difficult to explain by scribal emendation. C. But a site with a name resembling Γήμα is otherwise
1443
Ant. 20.117 specif ies that the soldier was unknown, and the MSS of the parallel (Ant. 20.118) are
beheaded. united in giving instead Γιναή, which is readily identi-
1444
The parallel explicitly credits Cumanus with hav- fiable with Γιναία (War 3.48)—a town at the N edge
ing thus prevented a second stasis. In War , too, he has of Samaria near the Great Plain (as also here): modern
not yet been blamed for these unfortunate events under Jenin.
1448
his governorship. Josephus observes with noteworthy At 3.48 Josephus likewise locates Γιναία, the
detachment the inevitable abuses of individual soldiers in northern-most site in Samaria, “in the Great Plain.” In
occupying armies, no matter what the governor’s inten- fact, the site overlooks that plain (the Jezreel Valley),
tions or attempts at remedy. from the hills that rise to the S of it. Ant. 20.118 is
1445
Or “combat, conflict, encounter, fight” (γίνεται clearer in placing it “on the frontier between Samaria
συµβολή). The construction is somewhat formulaic in and the Great Plain.”
1449
War : 1.172, 250, 369; 2.263, 290, 489; 4.547; 6.251. This clause may be read either as a genitive
1446
Ant. 20.118: “hostility of Samarians against absolute, as translated here, or as partitive: “of many
Judeans.” It has become common in scholarship to Judeans . . . a certain Galilean.” In this context it makes
distinguish “Samarians” (inhabitants of Samaria) from little practical difference, for in either case the Galilean
“Samaritans” (members of the religious group who should be understood as one of the Judeans: since it is
followed the Samaritan Pentateuch and worshiped at a pilgrimage festival, many Judeans are going to Jerusa-
Mt. Gerizim); cf. Coggins 1975: 9; Egger 1986; Meier lem; this incident happened to a Galilean. As Josephus’
2000: 204-5. Although the distinction is artificial in the Life shows clearly (e.g., 26-27, 63-66, 188-98), Galilean
sense that both words translate the same Greek terms culture of the time was Judean and, at least in time of
(Σαµαρεῖς, Σαµαρεῖται), and the ancients did not isolate war, Galileans looked to Jerusalem for leadership. One
190 book two

233 In response to this, whereas most of those in the Galilee ran together1452 to make war
on the Samarians,1453 their eminent men1454 went to Cumanus:1455 they implored him that

1451
spoke of going up to Jerusalem from Judean locations Or “done away with.” Since Josephus often uses
partly because it was in the hills, partly because of the more explicit words for “kill” (κτείνω and compounds), I
unique sanctity of city, temple, and festivals (see note usually render the euphemistic verb used here (ἀναιρέω),
to “up” at 2.16). even when the context obviously involves killing: “dis-
Once again, War reads like a compression of the Antiq- pose of, do away with, get rid of, eliminate.” This is
uities parallel. There (Ant. 20.118) Josephus explains that more difficult in the passive voice without resorting to
Galileans customarily traveled to festivals via Samaria. colloquialisms (“taken out, wiped out, wasted”).
In Life 269 (see BJP 9 with notes) he elaborates that In the parallel (Ant. 20.118) the MSS agree that cer-
anyone who wished to reach Jerusalem quickly had no tain inhabitants of Samarian Ginae joined in a fight and
choice but to go via Samaria: that journey could be com- killed many Galileans who were en route to Jerusalem.
pleted in 3 days. But he also implies that this route was That account, and possibly the switch in our passage
considered dangerous, and before sending his friends on from “Judeans” to “Galilean,” led some copyists of the
that trip, he wrote to other friends in Samaria to request War to write that many of the Judeans headed to Jeru-
safe passage for them. The gospel of Luke has a striking salem were killed (MSS PAM). The Latin, however,
parallel: headed S to Jerusalem, Jesus sends messengers supports the reading here (quidam galileus de numero
ahead to arrange his safe passage, but they are rebuffed iudaeorum ad festiuitatem ascendens interficitur), except
by one Samarian village because he is headed to Jeru- that it has the single Galilean “going up” to Jerusalem.
salem (Luke 9:51-6). Dignitaries and embassies making Feldman (LCL Ant. 20.118 n. e) offers the explanation of
the trip seem normally to have taken a substantial armed M. Aberbach (1949-1950), that Josephus was dependent
escort (Life 190, 200-201, 268, 316). on Roman sources while writing War, and they (being
Given that most pilgrims would need to take as little anti-Judean) portrayed this as a massive Judean over-
time as possible from their work (especially in agricul- reaction to the killing of just one person. Fatal problems
ture) to attend Jerusalem’s festivals, they might often for that theory are: (a) it would explain only this feature
have needed to travel through Samaria. The gospels of the accounts, which differ in numerous ways (e.g., the
indicate, however, that there was an alternative, longer problem of one or many statues ordered by Gaius, War
route: E to the area of Scythopolis, S along the Jordan 2.184-93//Ant. 18.256-309); (b) in fact the Roman gov-
Valley, then W to Jerusalem through the Judean hills ernors often appear in a better (more rounded, human,
from about Jericho. This was the trip, requiring perhaps intelligible) light in the Antiquities; and (c) this is one of
a week, taken by Jesus according to Mark (10:46; 11:1; the few episodes of Judean history under the procurators
cf. Luke 17:11; but John 4:4). Since the Jordan River for which we have a parallel in a Roman author (Tacitus,
alternative was not without its own dangers, especially Ann. 12.54), which tells a different story entirely, blam-
from banditry in the hills ascending from Jericho (Luke ing the struggle largely on competitive Roman governors
10:29-37), and given its much greater length, the fact inciting their native populations. There is little reason to
that Galileans were still willing to take it suggests that think that a “Roman source” was reflexively anti-Judean
the Samarian route was considered dangerous indeed. in the way proposed.
1450 1452
Neither here nor in Ant. 20.118 does Josephus See the note at 2.43 (also 2.230 above).
1453
explain which festival is in view, and identifying it is not As often in Josephus, and as the sequel (e.g.,
easy. The outcome of the following narrative will see the 2.234) indicates here, the impulses of the mob are a
Syrian legate Ummidius Quadratus visiting Jerusalem at constant threat to order and stability; they must always
Passover (2.244—in spring of 52) to determine the mood be managed by cultivated aristocrats of his own kind.
of the populace. But that visit will come only after much This outlook was widespread among Josephus’ contem-
travel, several embassies (e.g., to Tyre, 2.239), investiga- poraries, as in his models Thucydides and Polybius; see
tions and trials, executions, and the dispatch of Cumanus Introduction.
1454
and the tribune Celer to Rome (2.244). Since it is not It is characteristic of Josephus to distinguish the
possible that these could have happened during the single behavior of his own class (here, οἱ γνώριµοι) from that
Passover in 52 CE, whereas a year seems too much time of the masses (cf. 2.185, 199). See further 2.234 and
for the investigation of a single incident, the festival in especially 2.243-44, where the Syrian legate properly
question here was perhaps the autumn Festival of Suk- treats the groups differently. It would have been well
kot (Booths, Tabernacles) in 51 CE. So also Colautti understood by Josephus’ Roman audience that a gov-
(2002: 113). ernor’s first responsibility was to work with the local
book two 191

before [there was] irremediable suffering,1456 after going over into Galilee1457 he should
punish those responsible for the murder; for only in this way would the mob be recon-
ciled1458 short of war. Cumanus, however, put the pleas of these men in second place to
the affairs at hand1459 and sent off the pleaders, unsuccessful.1460
(12.4) 234 When the unfortunate incident1461 of the murdered person was reported in Judeans
Hierosolyma, the masses1462 stirred things up:1463 they abandoned the festival and rushed retaliate against
Samarians. Ant.
out towards Samaria, ungeneraled1464 and complying with no one who, among the lead- 20.120

élites to ensure stability (cf. Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer 2002), retribution. This infuriates the Galilean masses, who
and that is the assumption of the Judean leadership as immediately push for political freedom, from a “slavery”
portrayed here. In Josephus’ narratives, however, it is that is so demeaning and arbitrary, whereas the more
usually only the men of senatorial rank (the Syrian leg- sophisticated élites propose a counter-offer to “persuade”
ates), such as Petronius and Quadratus, who are capable Cumanus to take their side. The absence of the bribery
of making this distinction effectively—Quadratus even motif from this account might seem to suggest that it
treating the equestrian procurators rather like the local is a later embellishment, not something Josephus knew
élites, in sending all of them to Rome to render account about here and omitted. Given his general propensity in
(2.243-46). War 1-2 to abbreviate what must (on any account) have
1455
Cumanus is (cf. 2.236) at the governor’s normal been a much fuller narrative, and given the frequency
base in coastal Caesarea. with which Antiquities’ version matches what seems to
1456
This phrase (πρὶν ἀνηκέστου πάθους) is part have been in that longer account, it may simply be that
of Josephus’ tragic lexicon (also 1.121; 2.320; 6.123), in composing a more concise version here, the bribery
along with the closely related “irremediable calamities” question seemed a distraction. It is impossible to know.
(2.411, 532; 5.372). Although other authors occasionally Josephus’ clear blaming of Jerusalem’s masses in the next
have the need of such language (e.g., Aeschylus, Choeph. sentence for exacerbating the situation might suggest that
516; Thucydides 3.39.8; Herodotus 1.137; Isocrates, Big. he knew of an alternative plan among the élites, which
45; Andocides, Myst. 142; Lysias, Traum. 20; Demos- he opts not to explore in the space available here.
1460
thenes, Con. 5; Aeschines, Ctes. 226; Polybius 4.53.3; This is another example of characteristic Josephan
15.1.8; Diodorus 14.69.1; 31.3.2; 34/35.3.1; Dionysius, phrasing (ἀπράκτους ἀπέπεµψεν). Recall the similar
Ant. rom. 3.34.4; 8.14.2, 54.5, 61.3; 9.26.9; Thuc. 41), condition of suppliants before Petronius (2.198); cf. Ant.
they do not use it nearly as often or as programmati- 15.349; 16.293; 20.129.
1461
cally as Josephus. Only Philo comes close (Det. 176; Though difficult to translate here, this is the same
Post. Cain. 81; Plant. 157; Conf. ling. 13, 155; Spec. word (πάθος) rendered “suffering” in 2.233 above: with
3.104, 166; 4.173; Legat. 293), over the range of his many possible translations connected with tragic themes,
works. Of 13 occurrences of the adjective in Josephus’ it is a key word in War (1.9); see Introduction.
1462
War , 6 are in bk. 2, as he charts first the threat and then The parallel, perhaps more coherently, omits any
the tragic reality of “incurable” conditions created by (clear) separate reference to Jerusalem and its masses,
the later procurators and those who react to them (also keeping the focus throughout on the upset Galileans
2.316, 320, 411, 455, 532). and the interplay between Galilean masses and leaders
1457
That is: from coastal Caesarea, Cumanus is asked (20.119-22).
1463
to proceed first to Galilee (presumably on the NE route Greek συνταράσσω, without explicit object.
1464
via Legio or even N to Ptolemais and then E), to reassure Or (more to the point) “lacking the quali-
the deeply disaffected populace that he is about to take ties a good general would supply.” This unusual word
action, before moving to the northern edge of Samaria (ἀστρατήγητος), part of War ’s distinctive lexicon (also
to find the culprits. Even if Cumanus were inclined to go 3.477; 4.136; 5.122), is attested in Greek literature
after the culprits, it would have been easier from Cae- before Josephus only in Ps-Plato, Alc. 2.142a and Jose-
sarea to enter Samaria (to the E) without first visiting phus’ older contemporary Onasander 33.5. I can find no
Galilee; so presumably we should assume some such examples in inscriptions, though my search cannot be
motive, given the volatile mood of the Galileans and the exhaustive. Cicero uses the Greek word in his Latin let-
urgency of the crisis. ters, complaining about the dux who “lacks generalship”
1458
Or, more literally, “be disbanded” (διαλυθῆναι). in the face of Caesar’s juggernaut (Att. 7.13.1; 8.16.1—in
1459
Ant. 20.119 adds the signif icant detail that superlative). This suggests that it seemed a particularly
Cumanus had been “persuaded with stuff ” (i.e., bribed), apt Greek term, known already to him in spite of its lack
by the Samarians, to ignore the Judean demands for of literary attestation. Or he was merely showing off.
192 book two

ers,1465 was trying to restrain [them].1466 235 Now a certain Eleazar son of Deineus1467
and an Alexander1468 took charge of their bandit-like and factious1469 element,1470 who
fell upon1471 those sharing a border with the toparchy of Acrabatene 1472 and, giving
no quarter whatsoever for age,1473 did away with them and set their villages ablaze.
Cumanus (12.5) 236 Now Cumanus took from Caesarea one wing of cavalry,1474 which was called
intervenes. Ant.
20.12

1465
Possibly “magistrates” (οἱ ἄρχοντες); see the to the alleged bribing of Cumanus by the Samarians, and
note at 2.216 (there set in Rome). For its equivalence to the futility of the Judean leaders’ attempt, that the masses
other terms for the ruling élite, see the note to “powerful turn for assistance to the bandit Eleazar (“this man was
[men]” at 2.239 below. a bandit who for many years had been making his home
1466
This pair of missing attributes—generalship and in the mountains”). We should perhaps assume a finan-
willingness to listen to those who would restrain them—is cial transaction here, given other stories in Josephus of
the reverse of the situation that Josephus claims for the bandit groups for hire (Life 105, 200—troops of 600- to
Judeans later in the campaign, at least while the chief 800-men strong).
1471
priests Ananus and Jesus lived (4.314-25). Had Ananus Josephus leaves unclear what became of the
survived, Josephus claims, he would either have brought assaults undertaken by the masses themselves (2.234)
the people to terms through his compelling oratory or or where in Samaria those might have taken place, since
he would have made things much more difficult for the he mentions only the bandits attacking Acrabatene (but
Romans—through good generalship (3.321-23). That see further 2.237, seeming to confirm that the mobs had
this pair of virtues could be found in one man, as also gone off on their own). Antiquities is more coherent in
in Josephus, shows that for him the conduct of the war having the riled masses work under the leadership of the
was not a matter of ideology, of being pro- or anti-Ro- (hired?) bandits (20.121).
1472
man (as absolute principles). It was rather a question of Acrabatene was, Josephus reports (3.55), one of
aristocratic leadership and values; see Introduction. His 11 toparchies in Judea (also among Pliny’s 10 in Nat.
critique here (as also following the deaths of Ananus and 5.70), the one that marked the southern extremity of
Jesus: 4.326; 5.2) is that the always-impulsive mob went Samaria—note the narrower and broader uses of “Judea.”
off under its own steam, without men of breeding and Centered in Kh. Ormah (Acrabbim), according to Euse-
culture who could honorably manage the conflict, and so bius (Onom. Ἀκραββεῖν), it lay 9 miles SE of Neapo-
with disastrous results. lis (Shechem)—on the road down to the Jordan valley.
1467
Eleazar the bandit turns up again at 2.253 (sent “Those who bordered” Acrabatene, then, constituted one
to Rome by Felix), though War does not make it per- of the closest Samarian enclaves to Judea (3.48), and
fectly clear that it is the same person (cf. Ant. 20.121, were most easily attacked from Judean soil. This is the
161). Notwithstanding the “bandit” connection (see note first occurrence of the place name in War , where it will
at 2.56), this may have been a man of social standing. become significant as an assigned region in the defense
At 2:253 Josephus will claim that he and his associates of greater Judea (2.568) and the original base of Simon
were sent by Felix to Rome for trial, whereas many other son of Giora (2.652; 4.504, 511, 551).
bandits were executed in Judea. This could mean sim- Ant. 20.121 says more generally that the aggrieved
ply that he was the ringleader of a large insurrectionist Judeans attacked “certain villages of the Samarians.”
movement, significant enough for that reason to be sent Although Josephus’ audience might not understand
to Nero, or that he was a Roman citizen who enjoyed the “Acrabatene” without explanation, this more precise
right of trial in Rome. Feldman (LCL n. d to Ant. 20.121) location in War is clarified by the contextual cue in the
identifies him with “ben Denai” in Midrash Rabbah to previous sentence (“rushed out towards Samaria”).
1473
the Song of Songs 2.18, who prematurely tried to free the This charge of barbarity against the bandits is
Judeans, and Eliezer b. Dinai in m. Sotah 9.9 (b. Sotah missing from the parallel (Ant. 20.121). The phras-
47a): a prodigious murderer. ing, however ([µηδεµιᾶς ἡλικίας] φειδὼ ποιούµενοι),
1468
This otherwise unknown figure does not appear in is common in Josephus: War 1.319; 6.130; Ant. 1.96;
the Antiquities parallel. If Josephus used the same source 4.261; 11.218; 12.402; 17.202.
1474
for both accounts, he opted to pass over him there. Although Greek ἴλη, used here of the cavalry
1469
See the note at 2.91. The collocation of “factious unit, can indicate troops of quite different sizes (Poly-
and bandit-like” (στασιῶδες καὶ λῃστρικὸν) is standard bius 6.25.1; cf. note to “wing” at Life 121 in BJP 9), we
in War, appearing also at 2.511; 5.53; 6.417. It seems should apparently understand this one to be a full wing,
unattested in other surviving Greek literature. equivalent to the Latin ala, of about 500 (16 turmae of
1470
This again looks like the compression of a narra- 30 to 32 each), commanded by the senior equestrian
tive like that of Ant. 20.119-22. There, it is in response prefect of the auxiliaries. In addition to their practical
book two 193

“Sebastene,”1475 and marched out to provide assistance to those who were being ravaged;1476
of Eleazar’s group1477 he arrested many,1478 but killed most.1479 237 As to the remaining mob
of those who had rushed to make war on the Samarians,1480 the leaders of Hierosolyma,1481
running out covered in sackcloth and having poured ash on their heads,1482 kept begging
them to withdraw1483 and not, for the sake of revenge against the Samarians, provoke1484
the Romans against Hierosolyma; to take pity on1485 the homeland, the shrine,1486 their own

advantages for rapid response, the cavalry were the élite, more alive) illustrates well what seems to be his relish in
and best paid, force among the auxiliary units (Watson changing even basic elements of the stories he retells.
1480
1969: 15). The parallel (Ant. 20.122) has Cumanus take See the note to “fell upon” at 2.235. Only in War’s
5 units: 4 infantry and 1 cavalry. “Sebastene” (including version does Josephus distinguish between the masses,
Caesarean) forces apparently comprised 3,000 to 3,500 who go off and attack unspecified places in Samaria, and
men: 5 infantry cohorts (2,500-3,500) plus a cavalry wing the bandits and insurgents, led by Eleazar, who attack the
of cohort size (500): War 2.52 and note to “Sebastenes” region near Acrabatene.
1481
there; Ant. 19.365. That Cumanus would take the cav- Every element of this paragraph is more fully
alry and 4 infantry cohorts in this case (so Antiquities) developed in Ant. 20.122-24. E.g., whereas the text here
would make sense if he had left the remaining cohort in has οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων, there the meaning
Jerusalem for the ongoing festival (2.234). is elaborated: “those who were first among the Hiero-
1475
See 2.52, 58, 63, 74 and notes: the auxiliary units solymites in honor and birth” (οἱ δὲ πρῶτοι κατὰ τιµὴν
of Roman Judea, numbering 3,000-3,500 in total and καὶ γένος τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν). Although οἱ ἄρχοντες
drawn from Sebaste in Samaria and Caesarea, were a might have the specific sense of “the magistrates” (see
legacy to the Roman governors of the allied royal forces note at 2.216), many of the word’s 136 occurrences
of Herod and Archelaus. They were reportedly at con- in Josephus—e.g., in the case of ancient Israel (Ant.
stant odds with the Judean population, as is illustrated 3.70-71, 222)—must indicate simply “the leaders” or
by their reported indulgence of the exuberant celebra- “the rulers/ruling class,” who would of course include
tions of their populations at the death of Agrippa I (Ant. various magistrates and officials.
1482
19.355-61); Josephus claims that Claudius at one point Although (black) sackcloth, torn clothes, and
planned to remove all of these units to Pontus, replacing ashes were standard symbols of mourning in the bib-
them with legionaries (19.365). In the present narrative, lical and classical worlds (e.g., 2 Sam 3:31; Neh 9:1;
the governor’s dependence upon these troops drawn from Esth 4:1-4; Job 16:15; Jer 6:26; Lam 2:10; Jon 3:5-8; 1
Sebaste, in a conflict between Judea/Galilee and Sama- Macc 2:14; 3:47; 2 Macc 10:25; Josephus, Ant. 7.1), the
ria, obviously prejudices the issue. particular combination here of σάκκος and τέφρα (rather
1476
Thus, Cumanus has completely ignored the than biblical σποδός, as in the parallel to this story at
request of the Judean leadership that he first visit Gali- Ant. 20.123) appears otherwise only after Josephus’ time,
lee to calm the populace and then proceed to find the and in a few texts: Joseph and Aseneth (10.16; 13.3;
murderers in Samaria: he is exclusively focused now on 14.12); Acts of Thomas 135; also John Chrysostom. For
punishing those who have taken vengeance themselves. the dramatic cluster of tearing clothes, pouring ashes/
Notice Josephus’ detached narrative perspective: each dust, and wearing sackcloth see also 2.322, 601.
1483
party acts out a role without incurring his explicit moral These leaders play a typical role as intermediar-
judgment. The masses behave impulsively and violently, ies between the masses and the Roman governors: on
assisted as ever by opportunistic bandits, while the élite the one hand representing the people’s grievances to the
attempt to fulfill their difficult role of restrained interces- governor (2.233), on the other hand (here) pleading with
sion. The governor ignores one murder as uninteresting, the people not to exacerbate the situation (cf. Plutarch’s
but reacts immediately and with overwhelming force to essay on Political Advice [Mor.] 814c-815f, 823-24).
1484
reports of widespread unrest. See the note at 2.8.
1477 1485
Josephus does not say that Eleazar himself See the note to “compassion” at 1.12. This verb
was caught in this action, and it appears that he was (ἐλεέω) and its cognate noun, which appear about 39
apprehended only by Felix, in Nero’s time (2.253; Ant. times in War, are key components of the tragic lexi-
20.161). con (cf. Aristotle, Poet. 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5,
1478
The fate of these men is reported at 2.241. 1453b.12) in this work.
1479 1486
That this (πολλοὺς µὲν συνέλαβεν πλείστους δ᾿ That is, the innermost sacred house or sanctuary
ἀπέκτεινεν) is the precise opposite of Josephus’ assess- (ναός), localizing the divine presence in the Holy of
ment at Ant. 20.122 (πολλοὺς µὲν αὐτῶν ἀπέκτεινεν Holies. See the note at 1.10.
πλείους δὲ ζῶντας ἔλαβεν; he killed many, but took
194 book two

children and women1487—all of which they risked destroying collaterally for the sake of
revenge for one Galilean.1488 238 Persuaded by these [men], the Judeans broke up. But
many turned to banditry because of the absence of fear:1489 throughout the whole coun-
tryside there were raids1490 and indeed, from bolder ones,1491 uprisings.1492
Samarians 239 And the powerful [men]1493 of the Samarians came to Ummidius Quadratus,1494
appeal to
Quadratus,
Syrian legate.
Ant. 20.125
1487
Invoking the suffering of women and children was now felt vulnerable to the Samarians and the auxil-
a ready rhetorical device for enhancing the tragic ethos iary soldiers under Rome’s control, having now tasted
of a narrative (see the note to “women and children” at strength with the assistance of Eleazar’s professional
2.192), and Josephus exploits it more than 100 times, bandits many are opting for the pride and security (i.e.,
e.g.: War 2.396; 7.321, 362, 380-93 (repeatedly in the “freedom from fear”) that membership in bandit gangs
ultimate tragedy of Masada); Ant. 1.74, 2.302; Life 25, produces.
1490
84, 99, 207, 230, 328, 419. The 3-way appeal to women, Banditry (λῃστεία) and raids or plunderings
children, and homeland turns up again in Agrippa’s (ἁρπαγαί) form a natural pair (Thucydides 7.26.2; Poly-
speech (2.395), in Josephus’ narrative of the defense of bius 4.9.10; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.50.2; Philo, Flac. 5),
Iotapata (3.112), and in the parallel to this story at Ant. but they recur more characteristically in War than among
20.123; cf. 10.230. All the terms of this appeal fore- Josephus’ predecessors (2.57, 581, 593; 3.177; 4.134,
shadow that of Agrippa II (2.400)—“So let pity reach 409; 6.363; cf. Ant. 1.61).
1491
into you, even if not for children and wives, then for Or “more spirited ones.” Like much of Josephus’
this very metropolis and the sacred precincts. Spare the language related to issues of character, this adjective
temple and keep for yourselves the shrine with the holy (θρασύς) is restrained in its moral implications. The
[things]”—and from there the entire unfolding of the quality in view is typical of the young (cf. 2.267, 303,
story with the burning of the shrine, the destruction of 409). Although Josephus joins Thucydides and Polybius
the city, and the massive slaughter and enslavement. (with many contemporaries) in seeing youthful impul-
1488
It seems that the Jerusalem leaders (as Josephus’ siveness as a threat to the state, if it is allowed to go
characters) intend a pejorative tone by identifying the unchecked by the aristocratic leadership, he does not rail
victim as a Galilean, rather than speaking simply of against the condition itself but simply describes it with
“one person.” The argument from one victim would be characteristic detachment: this is what the young are like,
impossible, of course, if many Galileans had been killed, as everyone knows. Of the 8 occurrences of the adjective
as in the parallel (Ant. 20.118); this part of the appeal in War , 6 are in this comparative plural form (and 1 in
is therefore absent from the later version. But here it the superlative), indicating a type that should be familiar
anticipates Agrippa’s great speech (2.353): “It is per- to the audience, rather than defined individuals. Josephus
verse, because of one person [in that case, Florus], to uses θερµός and its comparative οἱ θερµότεροι in much
make war on many.” the same way (2.286; 4.292; 5.491).
1489 1492
The nuances of this ἄδεια (“absence of fear”; One of many stasis- compounds in War (see 1.10):
often therefore “safe passage, free hand, impunity, ἐπανάστασις.
1493
amnesty, license”) is unclear. Later in bk. 2 Josephus Josephus continues to draw from his repertoire
will use this word when he accuses the procurators Albi- of equivalent terms for the élite class (of any nation):
nus and Florus of creating an “impunity, safe passage, οἱ δυνατοί (as here), οἱ γνώριµοι (the notables), οἱ
license” for bandits, by colluding with them through πρῶτοι (the principal or first men), οἱ ἐπίσηµοι (the
bribery (2.274, 288). Yet at 2.427 the rebel leaders distinguished), οἱ ἐπιφανέστατοι (the most illustrious,
achieve de facto impunity for a popular uprising against eminent), οἱ ἄρχοντες (the leaders, magistrates), etc. See
the wealthy by defeating the royal forces who would have 2.243 and notes for another constellation of such terms.
contained them. The parallel (Ant. 20.124) also dates the His audience would know immediately the groups he
massive rise in banditry to this moment, though without was intending: society’s leaders by virtue of ancestry or
any explanation. family, education, wealth, political achievements, and
In the context here, since Cumanus has acted deci- consequent status.
1494
sively against the bandits, with maximum force, and Tacitus (Ann. 12.54) likewise credits the Syrian
reportedly killed “most” (2.236), there seems to be no legate with resolving this dispute, which he however
question of an “amnesty” from his side (contrast later casts as between competing procurators in Galilee and
procurators), unless something important has dropped Samaria. C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus (cos. suff.
from the narrative. Josephus may mean simply that 40-48 CE?) was a well known figure in Roman circles,
whereas the Judeans, especially Galileans, have until partly because he was the Syrian legate when in 54/55
book two 195

who was governor of Syria, at Tyre;1495 they were asking1496 to exact justice from those
who had ravaged their countryside.1497 240 The notables1498 of the Judeans and the high
priest Ionathes1499 son of Ananus1500 also being present, they were saying that the Samar-

CE the 17-year-old Nero sent Domitius Corbulo on his War there is nothing inappropriate in this request; it is
first Parthian campaign (Tacitus, Ann. 12.45, 48): Tacitus the proper task of the élite to put major grievances to the
relates a serious rivalry between the men, which Nero Roman legate for resolution, and as far as War’s audi-
wisely resolved by crediting the early victory in Par- ence knows their villages have been subject to random
thia (i.e., receiving fresh hostages from Vologeses) to attack. Again Josephus allows his various characters to
both of them equally (Ann. 13.8-9). Some high points air authentic-sounding perspectives.
1497
of his career are recoverable through inscriptions (esp. The parallel (Ant. 20.125-26) gives a fuller and
ILS 972; cf. 190), coins of Antioch, and literary sources subtler plea: the Samarians profess not so much to be
(summary in PIR 3.468-69). Before serving as Claudius’ injured themselves as to be indignant at the Judeans’
and then Nero’s legate to Syria (50-57/60 CE), in which flouting of due process, because the latter did not take
office apparently he died, he had been quaestor in 14 their grievance to the Romans, and so revealed a con-
CE, praetor aerarii in 18, proconsul of Cyprus under tempt for their governors. That appeal is ironic because
Tiberius, Tiberius’ and then Gaius’ legate to Lusitania, the Galilean leaders have in fact sought redress from
and Claudius’ legate to Illyricum. His ready intervention governor, who declined because he had allegedly been
in the affairs of Judea continues a pattern begun with bribed—by the Samarians (20.119)! That complaint by
Quinctilius Varus, and which continues under Quirinius the Samarians also seems to make better narrative sense,
(chiefly in Antiquities), Petronius, and finally Cestius however. Here Josephus has established Cumanus as the
Gallus (see the note to “province” at 2.117). Evidently, swift avenger of the Samarians, at least against Judean
whether the local governor is a prefect or a procura- “bandits,” quick to take the Samarian side using largely
tor, the Syrian legate remains ultimately responsible for Samarian cohorts (2.236); the ground for a Samarian
Judean affairs. See 2.117 and notes. Quadratus (“well complaint about injustice—on the part of Cumanus’
developed”), well attested as a cognomen (Kajanto 1982: administration—is therefore unclear, unless it relates to
65), was frequently used by the Ummidii. ongoing actions of Judean bandits (2.237), or unless per-
1495
Tyre (in mod. Lebanon) was a large and ancient haps the narrative intention is to present the Samarians,
Phoenician trading city on the coast, built on an island who have more privileged access to provincial security
that provided, via the connecting causeway, two excel- forces, posturing as victims for rhetorical purposes.
1498
lent harbors. The mother-city of the famous Phoenician Greek οἱ γνώριµοι. See the note to “powerful
colonies of Cyprus, Carthage, and Gades (Cadiz), it was [men]” in the preceding section. The pair “notables and
renowned for having rebuffed Alexander the Great in 332 chief priest(s)”—here singular, but otherwise plural—
BCE, who took it only after a difficult siege (Arrian, occurs 7 times in Josephus, all of them in War 2 (also
Anab. 2.16-24). After long subjection to Ptolemies and 243, 301, 318, 322, 410, 411).
1499
then Seleucids (from 200 BCE), it received free status This is the first mention of this important Judean
in 126 BCE, and its high-quality silver coins became the leader. His Hasmonean name (‫ )יהונתן‬is the 8th most fre-
standard currency for use in the Jerusalem temple (see quently attested for males in this period (Hachlili 2005:
further 2.592 and note). 200). At the direction of L. Vitellius, Jonathan had both
It was a journey of several days to Tyre from Sebaste succeeded Joseph Caiaphas and then quickly yielded
or Neapolis, either via Caesarea and the coastal road, or to his brother Theophilus as high priest in 37 CE (Ant.
via Legio to the N and then up the coast—passing through 18.95, 123). At 2.243 this former high priest will travel
Ptolemais. See notes to “Tyrians” at 2.188 and Life 44 to Rome to represent the Judean case before Claudius;
(BJP 9). Isaac (1998: 92) proposes that the refoundation at 2.256, after returning to Jerusalem, he will become
of Ptolemais by Claudius as a Roman colony (see note the first victim of the urban assassins called sicarii (at
to “Ptolemais” at 2.187) in 53 CE, the year following the direction of Felix according to Ant. 20.162-64). For
Cumanus’ departure as result of the Judean-Samarian Ananus I, the father, see the next note. Jonathan’s brother
conflict, was prompted by this very conflict; the adjective Ananus II will play a central role in War (2.563, 648-53;
stabilis in its name might support that connection. 4.151, 162-223): his murder and Josephus’ encomium
1496
I.e., asking him on their behalf. Although Jose- provide the central panel and narrative fulcrum of the
phus leaves the object (and subject of the vengeance) work (4.314-22); see Introduction.
implicit, perhaps because Qudratus would be working 1500
This Ananus (‫—חנן‬the 13th most frequently at-
in the Samarians’ interest, he cannot mean that they ask tested male name in the period; Hachlili 2005: 200),
the legate to be able to take their own vengeance. In though he appears only here in War, was a figure of
196 book two

ians had set off the disturbance1501 (on account of the murder), and Cumanus had become
responsible for the consequences, given that he had not been willing to go out against the
killers1502 of the one who had been slaughtered.1503
Quadratus (12.6) 241 Now at that point Quadratus postponed* both [cases], claiming that when-
sends antago- ever he came to the sites1504 he would thoroughly examine1505 each [case];1506 but he
nists to Rome.
Ant. 20.131 went instead1507 to Caesarea1508 and crucified1509 all those who had been taken alive by
Cumanus.1510 242 From there he went to Lydda1511 and again heard out the Samarians,1512

major historical importance in pre-70 Judea. Rabbinic mostly the Samarians’ way.
1507
literature recalls his family’s vast wealth (m. Ker. 1.7; Although most often this adverb (αὖθις) indicates
t. Men. 13.18; b. Pes. 57a). Appointed high priest by a going “back” or “again,” that meaning seems unsuited
Quirinius (6-15 CE; Ant. 18.26, 34), he had 5 sons who to the context here, since Quadratus has not been men-
reportedly all rose to the highest office in the following tioned in Caesarea before. The word can also mark the
decades (Ant. 20.197-98): the family appears to have second half of a µέν . . . δέ construction, which we have
exerted an extraordinary influence on Judean affairs until here, emphasizing the other of two terms: “Although he
70 CE. declared X, he did Y.” That seems to fit the sense here:
1501
It was an assumption shared by both author and he promised a thorough investigation, but first moved to
literary audience, and surely by the real characters behind execute the bandits in Caesarea and then heard only the
those in the story, that “disturbance” was the principal Samarians at Lydda, which resulted in the execution of
thing to be avoided in the provinces, and that native élites 18 more Judeans. He never does hear the Judean side
above all (cf. Plutarch’s essay on Political Advice [Mor.] or thoroughly investigate as promised. Quite differently,
823-24), in collaboration with the Roman governor if Ant. 20.129 has Quadratus try to fulfill his promise (see
necessary, needed to make sure that it did not happen. next note).
1508
See the note to this word at 2.170. See note at 2.16. According to Ant. 20.129
1502
Or “perpetrators.” Although old and well attested, Quadratus went to Samaria (not Caesarea), in fulfillment
this word (αὐθέντης) appears only at War 1.582 and here of his promise to investigate. While there, he concluded
in Josephus. It can refer either specifically to murderers after a hearing that the Samarians were responsible for
(Herodotus 1.117; Thucydides 3.58.5) or more generally the disturbance. He then crucified both the Judeans and
to “doers, perpetrators” (often in the context of death, the Samarians who had been arrested by Cumanus.
murder, or suicide). That story is awkward because one would assume that
1503
In the parallel (Ant. 20.127) the Judeans accuse Cumanus’ prisoners had been taken back to his secure
Cumanus, consistently with the story there (20.119), of base in Caesarea, as in this story (2.236, 241).
having accepted bribes. The relationship between the texts seems impossible
1504
Although one might have expected these sites to to recover. It may be that this is a clear case in which
include Jenin (Ginaia, site of the original murder), the Antiquities uses War as a base and changes the story. It is
region abutting Acrabetene (the scene of Eleazar’s raids), possible, however, that Josephus borrowed from a source
other Samarian villages, and perhaps areas in Galilee as like that used for Ant. 20 while writing this passage, but
well as Jerusalem, only the last of these receives a visit then when he came to write Ant. 20 and compared War 2,
from the legate. Either Quadratus means only that he realized that in his compression he had made Quadratus
will deal with cases away from Tyre, closer to the home harsher toward the Judeans than he had wished; so he
regions of the suppliants, or he promises a close inves- spelled out the finding of Samarian guilt along with their
tigation on the ground that never materializes. punishment there. Of course, we can no longer know.
1505 1509
This verb (διερευνάω) occurs 10 times in Jose- See the note to this word at 2.75. This was the
phus, all in War 1-6. For a sense of its usage, see 2.18, painful and humiliating form of execution chiefly used
41, where the Syrian procurator makes considerable for those without status and for bandits, rebels, and
efforts to “track down” the late King Herod’s assets. The slaves. See Hengel 1977; Cantarella 1991.
1510
language suggests that Quadratus is promising a careful These are the bandits from Eleazar’s gang arrested
examination on the ground, interviewing witnesses and at 2.236. Perhaps they were thought to deserve no further
gathering evidence. Ant. 20.128: Quadratus wanted to hearing because Quadratus recognized them as profes-
visit Judea and “learn the truth with precision.” sional criminals (“bandits”).
1506 1511
Ant. 20.129 begins to create a rather different See War 1.302 and Appendix A to BJP 1a. Lydda
tone by observing that “they [the Samarians] left, unsuc- (Lod) was a site of major logistical and strategic impor-
cessful.” In the present narrative, by contrast, things go tance. Seat of one of the 10 or 11 toparchies of Judea
book two 197

and after summoning eighteen of the Judeans, who, he had learned,1513 had taken part in
the fighting,1514 he dispatched1515 them with a double-ax.1516 243 Two others of the most
powerful [men]1517 he sent up to Caesar, as well as1518 the chief priests1519 Ionathes,1520
Ananias,1521 and Ananus the son of the latter,1522 and some others of the Judean notables,1523

(3.54-55; Pliny, Nat. 5.70), it lay on the major coastal priests and the powerful, with significant overlap (since
highway as it veered inland (Via Maris) and was also the the chief priests are understood to be among the most
junction for several roads to the interior, including the powerful): 1.31; 2.301, 316, 336, 411, 422, 428, 648;
two main routes to Jerusalem (via Beth Horon and via 6.422. See the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239, and
Ammaus). At the beginning of the war it will be among to “notables” in this section.
the areas assigned to John the Essaeus (2.567). Its loca- 1520
Son of Ananus Ι, high priest in 37 CE: see note
tion made Lydda the perfect choice as a temporary base at 2.240.
for Quadratus. Cf. J. Schwartz 1991: 67-78 (for this 1521
This (‫ )חנניה‬is the 10th most commonly attested
period, though he mainly discusses literary traditions). male name in this period (Hachlili 2005: 200). Although
1512
Ant. 20.130 has Quadratus hear out the Samarians Josephus is not interested in clarifying such matters for
in Lydda (same verb) from a tribunal platform (bema). War ’s audience, Ananias son of Nebedeus is the current
1513
Given the difference of content with Ant. 20.130, high priest (47/48 to 59 CE; cf. Ant. 20.103, 179)—appar-
it is striking that there Quadratus also learns (there ently holding the longest term since Caiaphas in the time
διδάσκω, here πυνθάνοµαι) about certain Judean cul- of Pilate’s long governorship (18-37 CE). Confusion
prits. This might suggest a deliberate change of story. about Ananias’ term arises from conflicting information
1514
Ant. 20.130 claims that Quadratus was told by about his successor, Ishmael son of Phabi (Ant. 20.179),
a certain Samarian that an otherwise unknown Judean whom the Talmud (b. Yoma 9a) gives 10 years in office.
leader (πρῶτος) named Doetus, with 4 other “revolution- Although that notice was recorded about half a millen-
aries,” had been inciting the mob to defection from the nium after the events, some scholars find reason to credit
Romans: a charge that does not appear here and seems it; D. R. Schwartz (1983) proposes that Ishmael took
at odds with the logic of 2.237, which has the masses office during Ananias’ aforementioned lengthy stay in
recognize that their fury is because of a single Galileans’ Rome, from about 49 BCE; cf. also Goodman 1987:
death. There it is these 5 revolutionaries (not the 18 here 142 n. 5.
who have sacked Samarian villages) whom Quadratus At least two of Ananias’ sons reportedly served as
orders executed. temple “captain”: Ananus (next mentioned here) and
1515
This (διαχειρίζοµαι) is one of Josephus’ rarer then Eleazar, who will play a crucial role in the build-up
euphemisms for killing, used otherwise in War only at to war (2.408-18); see 2.568 for a possible 3rd. Ananias
1.113, 547; 2.478; cf. Ant. 15.173; 6.115. himself appears as a man of great wealth (Ant. 20.205-6,
1516
That is, they were beheaded, rather than being cru- 213); a few years after his return from this present trip
cified like the bandits of the previous sentence. Behead- to Rome, his house will fall to arson at the hands of
ing was considered the most honorable and humane form the rebel leaders (2.426). He and his brother Ezekias
of execution, because it did not involve the prolonged will take refuge with Agrippa’s troops in the Herodian
suffering that crucifixion entailed. palace (2.429), where they will eventually be caught
1517
These men are curiously unnamed; see note to and killed when the palace is abandoned by royal forces
“latter” in this sentence. This section illustrates well the and stormed by Menachem’s men (2.441). Ananias’ son
equivalence of terms (here τῶν δυνατωτάτων) for the Eleazar will then have his revenge (2.443-46).
1522
élite in Josephus; see the note to “powerful [men]” at See the previous note and that to the name (of a
2.239. different man) at 2.240. According to Ant. 20.131 Ananus
1518
This is a peculiar sentence. Josephus features son of Ananias was temple commandant (στρατηγός),
the two important men at the outset, but fails to iden- before his brother Eleazar took up that position (War
tify them; he then names three who seem to be of the 2.408-9). He appears, however, only in these parallel
highest possible rank (current high priest, a predeces- stories.
1523
sor, and a son); finally he mentions others of the same The phrase [τινας ἄλλους] Ἰουδαίων γνωρίµους
class (again unnamed). Ant. 20.131 is clearer: Quadratus is plainly equivalent to “powerful [men]” in this section.
sent to Claudius the high priest Ananias and the captain For Josephus’ wide repertoire of terms for the élite, see
Ananus (apparently, the most important Judeans of the the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239. Chief priests and
time) “and their group.” notables are coupled here and at 2.240, 301, 318, 322,
1519
In War (only) Josephus frequently pairs the chief 410, 411—only in War 2.
198 book two

and likewise the most eminent1524 of the Samarians. 244 And he instructed both Cumanus
and Celer the tribune1525 to sail to Rome, in order to give an account1526 to Claudius con-
cerning what had happened. After he had fully dealt with these matters, he went up from
Lydda to Hierosolyma,1527 and having found on his arrival1528 the mob conducting the
Festival of the Unleavened1529 without disorder,1530 he went back to Antiocheia.1531
Claudius (12.7) 245 Now in Rome, when Caesar1532 had given a hearing to Cumanus and the
banishes
Cumanus,
Samarians1533—Agrippa was also there,1534 contending vehemently1535 for the Judeans,1536
orders Celer
punished. Ant.
20.135
1524
This (τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους) is the 3rd equiva- 1527
See the note to “up” at 2.16.
1528
lent term in this section for the élite, used here of the Possibly “being surprised to find” (καταλαβών);
Samarians. see note to “surprised” at Life 17 in BJP 9. Accord-
1525
Unknown outside of Josephus, this Celer appears ing to Ant. 20.133, as might be implied here, Quadratus
only here and in the denouement (2.246), as well as in worried that he would find the Jerusalemites in a new
the parallels (Ant. 20.132, 136). Celer (“swift, speedy”) rebellion.
1529
was a very common Latin cognomen (borne by 519 men See the note at 2.10.
1530
and 2 women according to Kajanto 1982: 66). It is note- The adverb ἀθορύβως occurs only here and at
worthy that, like Quadratus, the name signifies a physical War 1.150 in Josephus (there also of sacred rites con-
virtue associated with men. The Roman name suggests ducted without perturbation).
1531
a continuation of the pattern (see note to “Gratus” at Although Quadratus has been introduced at Tyre
2.52) that Judea’s auxiliary forces, though raised locally (2.239), Antioch on the Orontes was his capital and base
from Sebaste and Caesarea, are under the command of as Syrian legate. See note at 2.18.
1532
a Roman (possibly equestrian) officer, possibly a Greek Claudius (2.244). On the title, see notes to “Ro-
who has acquired citizenship. Given Celer’s dreadful fate mans” at 1.20; “Iulia” at 2.168; and especially “Caesar”
below (2.246), the audience must assume that the tribune at 2.181.
1533
has been a major irritant in the episodes just described. As we have come to expect, from the preceding
He may have been responsible for the Jerusalem cohort narrative (2.233, 236, 240), Cumanus is here assumed to
that flooded the colonnades and caused the deaths of be in complete solidarity with the Samarian leaders. Ant.
many thousands (2.227). His rank of “tribune” might 20.134-35 emphasizes this by having Claudius devote a
suggest that Jerusalem hosted a cohors milliaria—1,000 day to hearing their side, and by having the emperor’s
strong rather than the customary 500 (see the note to freedmen and friends wholeheartedly support them.
1534
“cohort” at 2.224). Less likely, he led a 1,000-strong That is, Agrippa II. Although we last heard of him
Sebastene cavalry ala in their campaign to destroy the when he was granted the kingdom of his uncle Herod,
bandits (2.236). in Chalcis (2.223), like many Herodians he spent a great
In any case, the audience would presumably find deal of time in Rome, the city of his youth. It is unclear
nothing strange in the fact that one of Cumanus’ senior from Josephus’ language whether Agrippa was present
officers would be held responsible with him. The NT at the hearing (Why would he be, if it were devoted
Acts gives a vivid impression of the role that a tribune to Cumanus and the Samarians?) or simply present in
of the Jerusalem cohort (there, a Greek with Roman citi- Rome (more likely). Ant. 20.135 suggests the latter, also
zenship: Claudius Lysias) could play in dealing with the by having Agrippa observe the Samarians’ initial suc-
populace—irrespective of whether the events happened cess and then try to remedy the situation. Here again
as described there. Acts’ tribune convenes the Jerusa- the account in War looks like it could be a précis of the
lem council and tries to work with members of the local account in Ant. 20.
1535
élite, as the governor’s agent, to resolve issues creating Greek ἐκθύµως ὑπεραγωνιζόµενος. The col-
popular unrest (Acts 23:31-38; 22:23-23:30). Inevitably, location ἐκθύµως + ἀγωνίζοµαι is well established in
the man in such a powerful and visible position (in Jeru- Polybius (2.9.5; 3.115.4; 11.14.1) and—exclusively—
salem) faced the constant risk of alienating the people; subsequent Hellenistic historians (Diodorus 11.8.2,
an incompetent or malevolent tribune could cause great 31.2, 76.2; 12.41.5; 15.55.4; 17.34.4, 59.4, 63.2;
damage. 19.65.5; 20.87.3; 22.13.5; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.54.4;
1526
Instead of this construction (δίδωµι [Κλαυδίῳ] 8.65.2-3, 86.5; 9.61.2; Plutarch, Pyr. 30.6; Ages. 18.3;
λόγον), which usually has the sense of passing word Appian, Annib. 93). This intensification of the action
along, we might expect the more formulaic language for with a ὑπερ– prefix is barely attested in literature
submitting or rendering and account (ὑπέχω λόγον) to before his time (Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.41.3), though
Caesar; see the note at Life 13 in BJP 9. it soon appears thereafter (Appian, Bell. civ. 1.11.96;
book two 199

seeing that many of the powerful1537 were standing in support of Cumanus1538—he passed
judgment against the Samarians and ordered that the three most powerful [of them]1539 be
done away with, whereas he exiled Cumanus. 246 Celer1540 he sent back1541 to Hierosolyma
in chains,1542 and directed that he be handed over to the Judeans for torture1543 and that,
after he had been dragged around the city,1544 in this way his head be hacked off.1545
(12.8) 247 After these [events] he sent out* Felix1546 the brother of Pallas1547 to be Felix procurator
of Judea. Ant.
20.137

1540
3.2.19; Polyaenus, Exc. 40.3; often in late antiquity). The tribune; see 2.244.
1541
The adverb, in Josephus elsewhere only at Ant. 19.158, Possibly “sent up” (ἀναπέµπω). On going up to
seems to be a Hellenistic formation, attested from Poly- Jerusalem, see the note to “going up” at 2.232.
1542
bius (16 occurrences) onward (Diodorus has 15, Diony- Or “as a detainee” (Κέλερα δὲ δεσµώτην ἀνα-
sius 5, Philo 7), often in the construction already noted. πέµψας); see the note to “detainees” at 2.4.
[It is in the epitome of the 2nd-cent. BCE grammarian 1543
Greek παραδοθῆναι . . . πρὸς αἰκίαν. Note the
Aristophanes, but may come from the epitomator.] The similar phrase at Ant. 1.188 (though not attested else-
adjectival form occurs before Josephus only in 2 Mac- where before or contemporary with Josephus). Ant.
cabees (7:3, 39; 14:27), negatively: of the king’s being 20.136 mentions no separate torture, but being dragged
beside himself. about the city as a spectacle before beheading.
1536 1544
Ant. 20.135 gives the crucial intermediary role to Ant. 20.136 spells out the point of this dragging
Claudius’ wife, Agrippina the Younger. Agrippa contends around: Celer was to be “seen by all” in his pre-execu-
for the Judeans by approaching Agrippina and asking her tion humiliation.
1545
to intercede with Claudius: to persuade him to act in a “In this way . . . ” (οὕτω τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποκοπῆ-
manner more fitting with his commitment to law, and ναι) implies that this was not to be a proper Roman
to punish the (Samarian) instigators of the revolt. This beheading—an honorable mode of execution for soldiers,
she does, and it is her successful intervention that pro- citizens, and other respectable persons (see the note to
duces the conclusion described here in War . If Josephus “double-ax” at 2.242). This beheading, after torture
is briefly summarizing that account (or one like it) here, and humiliation by foreigners, following the months-
it is probably no coincidence that he omits Agrippina’s long journey back to Judea in anticipation, would be
role, for he is about to render a harsh verdict on her med- an extreme form of degradation for the tribune. It sug-
dling in the succession after Claudius (2.249). Although gests that Claudius (like Quadratus) was indeed worried
the later account is arguably even harsher on Agrippina about the intensity of the Judeans’ grievance as conveyed
(Ant. 20.148-52), that attack is separated from Cumanus’ by Agrippa (and Agrippina?). Letting them see severe
hearing by several paragraphs. justice done to this Roman officer should help assuage
1537
Ant. 20.135 elaborates that it was Claudius’ freed- their anger, just as Cumanus’ earlier execution of an aux-
men—whom we know to have included Narcissus, Cal- iliary soldier after he had been paraded past his Judean
listus, and Pallas, who held unprecedented power in his accusers led them to disperse from their demonstrations
administration (cf. Levick 2001: 53-58)—and friends (2.231).
1546
(amici) who showed the greatest partiality toward As Josephus’ Roman audience would have realized
Cumanus and the Samarians. It is a striking recognition immediately from the next phrase, Felix—brother to one
of the new realities of the principate that Josephus should of Claudius’ most trusted advisers, himself a freedman
choose to represent those freedmen, if he is here sum- whom the princeps had raised to equestrian status and
marizing the same narrative, as “many of the powerful” entrusted with a province—must have gone to Judea in
(πολλοὶ τῶν δυνατῶν). 52 CE with powerful support behind him. His term was
1538
This compact style suggests, in comparison with unusually long for Roman governors after King Agrippa
the much more leisurely parallel in Ant. 20, that Josephus I (41-44 CE), ending in 59 or 60 CE on the standard
is condensing a fuller account. but debated reckoning (Schürer-Vermes 1.460), in 58
1539
The parallel (Ant. 20.136) has Claudius order- according to Kokkinos (1998: 385). Further evidence of
ing the deaths of the Samarians who appeared before his strong backing is the failed effort of Judean leaders
him. Harmonizing the accounts would suggest that 3 from Caesarea to prosecute him in Rome after his return
of their most important men had gone as emissaries, (cf. Ant. 20.182). Barrett (1996: 126-27) makes a good
which would make sense given the Judean delegation’s case that Agrippina, Claudius’ wife and Nero’s mother,
composition (former and current high priest, temple cap- who would be honored on Judean provincial coins begin-
tain, and other notables). This would mean, however, that ning in 54 CE (thus produced by Felix), was the main
Claudius was willing, even in an abrupt change of posi- source of his support.
tion, to execute the highest Samarian leadership. Whereas Tacitus gives Felix’s gentilicium as Antonius
200 book two

(matching that of his brother Pallas, whom Claudius’ Drusilla—and portraying him as nervous when Paul
mother Antonia had freed: see next note), which would begins to talk about fairness, self-control, and pending
further suggest the praenomen Marcus, the MSS of Ant. divine judgment (Acts 23:24-26; 24:22-27).
1547
20.137 call him “Claudius Felix”—both names in the In addition to specifying which Felix is in ques-
accusative as object of the verb πέµπει. Most editors, tion, Josephus’ identifier “the brother of Pallas” assumes
however, follow the Epitome in emending that text by that his audience in Flavian Rome knows the name of this
one letter to make Claudius the subject of the verb: thus, powerful man from Claudius’ reign. Pallas (of uncertain
“Claudius sends Felix” (Schürer-Vermes 1.460 n. 19), but apparently Greek origin) first appears as the most
permitting the gentilicium Antonius. Kokkinos (1990), trustworthy slave of Claudius’ mother Antonia (daughter
however, makes the case for “Tiberius Claudius” as of Marc Antony and Octavia); she reportedly entrusted to
Felix’s forenames, partly on the strength of the dedica- him the sensitive mission of informing Tiberius, then liv-
tory Bir el-Malik inscription, which mentions an official ing at Capri, about the plot of his prefect Aelius Seianus
named “Tiberius Claudius” under whom the honorand in Rome in 31 CE (Ant. 20.182). At some time between
(one T. Mucius) had served (L’année épigraphique 31 and Antonia’s death in 37, Pallas received his free-
[1967], ed. J. Gagé et al. [Paris 1969], no. 525). Brenk dom: although his activities during Gaius’ brief reign
(2001) offers cogent critique of Kokkinos’ reconstruction are uncertain, he went on to become a valued aide to
of the inscription’s missing parts (including the crucial Claudius.
“Felix”), though he allows that Felix may have had, and One of the 3 Greek freedmen to whom Claudius gave
used, both gentilicia. unprecedented influence, with Narcissus and Callistus,
As for the cognomen Felix (“fortunate, lucky, happy”), M. Antonius Pallas first appears in Claudius’ reign in
it is among the most commonly attested names of antiq- 48 CE as the powerful secretary of imperial accounts
uity (5,115 times), and disproportionately represented (a rationibus), master of the imperial treasury (fiscus),
among slaves and freedmen (Kajanto 1982: 72-3). Even the holdings of which were spread around the empire
though men of distinction (such as Sulla) could assume (Tacitus, Ann. 11.29). Pallas received from later authors
the name in a different context as a badge of honor after fuller and even more hostile attention than his colleagues
great success, its frequency in the lower orders suggests (e.g., Pliny, Ep. 7.29). This was not only because he had
that hearing the name, for a freedman of Claudius or become a gateway to the princeps, above equestrians and
his mother, would reinforce a Roman audience’s feeling also leading senators, reportedly using his influence to
of disdain. select Claudius’ 4th wife Agrippina after Narcissus had
Tacitus claims, with typical sarcasm and contempt for prosecuted the downfall of Messallina, but also because
powerful freedmen, that Felix had less moderation than of the conspicuous and, to later senatorial writers, nau-
his brother Pallas, that he was a thoroughly incompetent seating honors he received—praetorian rank (ornamenta,
governor of Judea, who pursued an ongoing conflict with Suetonius, Claud. 28), conveyed in a senatorial decree
a fellow-governor (Ann. 12.54), and that he was given to engraved in bronze that praised Pallas’ loyalty (Pliny, Ep.
barbarian and lustful practices, exercising “the power of 8.6; Tacitus, Ann. 12.53) and vast accumulated wealth
a king with a slave’s temperament” (Hist. 5.9). Tacitus (Tacitus, Ann. 12.53; 14.65)—and because of his collu-
also claims that Felix married Drusilla, the grand-daugh- sion with the hated Agrippina (Tacitus, Ann. 12.1-2, 25,
ter of Antony and Cleopatra (Hist. 5.9). Josephus has 65; 13.2; 14.2). Although Pallas’ honors were mostly
him marry a different Drusilla: the daughter of Agrippa voted by the Senate, Oost (1958: 131-33) argues that the
I and Cyprus; hence the sister of Agrippa II. Although tone of those who proposed them (who had little choice
it is possible that Felix married two royal Drusillas from but to please the princeps) was ironic.
very different families (so Barrett 1996: 127), it is easier Pallas’ influence was at its height in 52 CE, when
to imagine that Tacitus is mistaken (discussion in Brenk he assisted Claudius in solving the legal problem of the
2001). status of free women who married slaves, a solution
Josephus omits the marriage story in War, but the par- accepted by the Senate and for which Pallas was voted
allel (Ant. 20.141-44) supports Tacitus’ charge of Felix’s the honors mentioned above. But after Claudius’ death
libidinous character: Drusilla is already married to King and Nero’s accession in 54, followed by Agrippina’s
Azizus of Emesa, who has undergone circumcision for rapid decline in power (after a brief period of glory),
the purpose, when Felix notices her and decides that he the young princeps followed the advice of his counselors
must have her; he uses a magician to persuade her to and removed Pallas from power (January, 55 CE; Taci-
leave her husband. Josephus condemns the union and tus, Ann. 13.14-15; cf. Oost 1958: 132-35). He seems to
pointedly observes that the son from their union (named have retained some influence, for Josephus credits him
Agrippa) died in the eruption of Vesuvius (79 CE). Acts with interceding in behalf of Felix against Judean accus-
features Felix as governor at the time of Paul’s arrest, ers (Ant. 20.182). Pallas died in 62 CE, suddenly and
also noting that he was married to the Judean princess (therefore?) reportedly as the result of poison arranged
book two 201

procurator1548 of Judea, as well as1549 of Samaria, Galilee,1550 and Perea;1551 he shifted*

Agrippa from Chalcis1552 to a greater kingdom,1553 having given to him the province1554 that
had been Philip’s—this was Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitis1555—and he added the
kingdom of Lysanias1556 and the tetrarchy that had been Varus’s.1557 248 After administering

by Nero, though the explanation has little to commend it struct a probable hypothesis from available evidence.
1551
(Suetonius, Nero 35; Tacitus, Ann. 14.65; Dio 62.14.3). See notes at 2.43, 57.
1548 1552
See the note at 2.117. Formerly the territory of Agrippa’s brother Herod
1549
In his effort to spell things out (it seems), Jose- (see 2.217, 221 and notes), subsequently given to Agrippa
phus exacerbates some inconsistencies. (a) This descrip- II (2.223).
1553
tion assumes that Judea does not include Samaria and Ant. 20.138 dates this major shift in Agrippa’s ter-
Galilee. Although this accords with the narrower sense ritories to a time when Claudius had completed 12 years
of the word (Judea proper, distinct from Samaria) in of rule: thus, in the 12 months from Jan. 25, 53 CE to
some of his geographical descriptions (2.96; 3.48), even January 54. The passage also indicates that Agrippa had
in those contexts Josephus can include at least Sama- ruled Chalcis for 4 years, which would put the the begin-
ria and Idumea (3.55); see also his characterization of ning of his rule there in either 49 or 50, each of which
Herod’s larger domain as Judea (1.225, 244). Often he complicates other calculations, especially the events in
assumes that Galilee’s Judeans are part of Judea proper Caesarea that precipitated the outbreak of war (2.284
(e.g., 2.192-93, 202), as in the recent episode Judeans below); see note to “kingdom” at 2.223.
1554
come from Galilee (2.232; cf. 3.53, 143, 409 [coastal Translated thus for consistency, since this term
Caesarea—N of even Samaria—is “one of the largest (ἐπαρχία) usually indicates a “province” (provincia)
cities of Judea”]). The broader sense of the word was which a legate, proconsul, prefect, or procurator governs.
familiar to Roman audiences (Pliny, Nat. 5.70 [which Josephus evidently uses the term more broadly here. Ant.
has Galilee and Perea as partes of Iudaea, though also 20.138 speaks more precisely of the tetrarchy of Philip
distinguishing them]; Tacitus, Hist. 5.6). (b) Josephus passing to Agrippa II.
1555
implies here that Samaria, Galilee, and Perea were new So 2.95, which adds Auranitis and the estates of
additions to Felix’s territory as procurator of Judea, Zenon (Lysanias’ territory) to Philip’s tetrarchy. Curi-
whereas in fact he had the same territory as the preced- ously, although Ant. 18.106 names the same territories
ing governors after King Agrippa (2.220: Claudius made as Philip’s tetrarchy at his death, the parallel passage to
“the kingdoms” or royal territories into a province). The this one (Ant. 20.138) has Agrippa II receiving Philip’s
parallel (Ant. 20.137) has Felix dispatched simply to take tetrarchy as well as Batanea and Trachonitis, as if they
charge of affairs “in Judea.” Noting the peculiarity of this were distinct.
1556
description, Aberbach (1949-50: 6) takes it as a vestige See the notes to “Zenon” at 2.95 and to “Lysani-
of the circumstance “that Felix had in fact been governor as’s” at 2.215. This area, identified as “Lysanias’ former
of one of these districts, namely Galilee, and was now tetrarchy of Abela” at Ant. 20.138 (cf. Luke 3:1), lay W
appointed over the whole of Palestine.” See the note to and N of Damascus. Here (2.252 below) Josephus will
“Cumanus” at 2.223. separate out Abela (Abila, Abilene) as a separate gift.
1550 1557
It is a famous problem (see the note to “Cumanus” This was likely a puzzling reference for Josephus’
at 2.223) that Tacitus confidently makes Felix and audience. Although Varus was a common Latin cogno-
Cumanus contemporary governors, giving the former men (meaning “twisted, bent, knock-kneed”), and the
Samaria and the latter Galilee (Ann. 12.54). Tacitus Roman legatus Q. Varus has played a prominent role
portrays the two procurators in perpetual conflict, each in War 2 (2.16-18 etc.), the Varus in question here (or
collaborating with troublesome elements in his district, Noarus) is the former tetrarch (hence “tetrarchy” here)
until the matter is resolved by the Syrian legate Quadra- of Libanus or Mt. Lebanon (so Life 52). Tacitus (Ann.
tus, who favors Felix and unfairly condemns Cumanus. 12.23) and Dio (59.12.2) mention a Soaemus who
Given Josephus’ better local knowledge and more received “Iturea” from Gaius in about 38 CE and held
detailed accounts, most scholars think that Tacitus is it until his own death in 49 CE. Although his territory
confused: he knows about a conflict involving Cumanus passed back into the Roman province of Syria at that
and Samaria, but puts the pieces together mistakenly. point, since Josephus identifies Varus as Soaemus’ heir
Any effort to reconcile the two accounts (e.g., Aber- (Life 52) it seems likely that he was permitted to hold
bach 1949) must make many assumptions to explain the part of Soaemus’ territory for a few years—until Clau-
range of differences. It is difficult to see how to con- dius gave it to Agrippa II (here).
202 book two

the imperium for thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days,1558 he [Claudius] died*;1559
he had left behind as successor to the rule Nero,1560 249 whom he adopted1561 as his son
for inheritance of the rule through the tricks1562 of Agrippina his wife,1563 though he had
a genuine [son],1564 Brettanicus,1565 from Messalina1566 his former wife, and Octavia, a

1558
This is exactly correct: counting from the day of Nero. Like Augustus and Tiberius before him, Claudius
Gaius’ assassination (Jan. 24, 41) to Claudius’ death on was evidently trying to secure both “an heir and a spare”;
October 13, 54 (cf. Ant. 20.148; Suetonius, Claud. 45; even Agrippina’s 12-year-old son Nero would need some
Tacitus, Ann. 12.69; Dio 60.34.3). years to reach manhood, and ended up assuming the
1559
Josephus’ audience would know what he slightly principate at only 16. On Nero’s succession see Grif-
elaborates in Ant. 20.148: that Claudius was widely fin 1984: 18-33; Barrett 1996: 114-19, 146-67; Levick
rumored to have died by poisoned food arranged by his 2001: 69-72.
wife Agrippina (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 12.66-67; Suetonius, Although Josephus implies that Agrippina’s tricks
Claud. 44; Dio 61.34.2-3), to expedite the rise of her extended to thwarting not only Britannicus but also
son Nero to power. For discussion, see Barrett 1996: Claudius’ natural daughters, this only shows that he is
138-42. over-reaching to attack Agrippina. There was no chance
1560
See the note to “Nero’s principate” at 1.20. “Nero” that a woman could become princeps, of course, and if
had become part of his name only after his adoption by Josephus means that the husbands of these daughters
Claudius on Feb. 25, 50 CE, when he (L. Domitius Ahe- might have been candidates, he contradicts himself by
nobarbus) took Claudius’ father’s name (Nero Claudius noting that Nero was pledged to Octavia (see note to
Drusus) with supplements (Germanicus Caesar). For his “Nero” here)—unless the implication, for a knowing
adoption, see the following notes. audience, is that the girl Octavia could have produced an
1561
Claudius adopted Nero on Feb. 25, 50 CE: not- heir (after a few years) with the husband who was wait-
withstanding any scheming on Agrippina’s part, this ing to marry her, L. Iunius Silanus, who was removed by
made perfect sense in terms of the succession, since intrigue to free her for Nero (Levick 2001: 70-71).
his own son Britannicus was only 9, and he may have This loose and puzzling list of daughters might be
wished to follow the Augustan model—with Gaius and most easily explained as Josephus’ hasty synopsis of
Lucius—of a paired succession (Levick 2001: 70). For material that will later appear in Ant. 20.149-50, by his
the language, see the note to “genuine [son]” below in tacking on other children’s names without much thought,
this section. after mentioning Britannicus. The same women are
1562
See the note to “trickery” at 2.106. The English mentioned there, but only as background to Agrippina’s
translation (Greek ἀπάταις) carries a double-entendre efforts to thwart Britannicus and promote Nero (partly
suited to the case, given the widespread reports of Agrip- by murdering Claudius); there is no hint there that the
pina’s many sexual liaisons. Among her “tricks” would women offered alternatives to the succession.
1564
presumably be her seductive ways in luring Claudius and For the relationship between these terms, see also
her removal of rivals after her marriage. Ant. 1.154: lacking a genuine (γνήσιος) son, Abraham
1563
Iulia Agrippina “the Younger,” daughter of Clau- adopted (εἰσεποιήσατο) Lot; Isaeus, Euph. 2; [Demos-
dius’ brother Germanicus (so Claudius’ niece and the thenes], Leoch. 6.
1565
former princeps Gaius’ sister) and Vipsania Agrippina So all the Greek MSS (Βρεττανικός); Latin Brit-
“the Elder” (herself daughter of Augustus’ lieutenant tannicum. Josephus uses the standard Greek rendering
Marcus Agrippa and Iulia), had a distinguished ances- (based on Βρεττανία)—also in Cassius Dio and others—
try. The twice-widowed 33-year-old, with a 10-year-old for the person we know as Britannicus. This is his only
son L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (future Nero) from her appearance in War, but see the much fuller account in
first marriage, was one of several candidates for the role Ant. 20.149-53, of which this reads as a précis.
of Claudius’ 4th wife in the year 48, following Messal- Ti. Claudius Caesar Germanicus was born to Messal-
lina’s death (Tacitus, Ann. 12.1-3). Josephus displays lina, who had married Claudius in 38 or 39, on Feb. 12,
here both his reflexive mistrust of women’s wiles (cf. 41, not yet 3 weeks after Claudius’ perilous achievement
2.121 and notes) and his eager participation in con- of supreme power. He was their second child (first was
temporary élite Roman assessments of Agrippina (on Octavia). The boy would receive the hereditary name
which see Barrett 1996: 6-12 et passim; Ginsburg 2006). “Britannicus” after Claudius’ triumph in 44 CE, rec-
Josephus’ implication that Claudius could have pro- ognizing the successful invasion of Britain through the
moted Britannicus neglects the reality that the child was preceding year. This transference of honorary names was
only 9, when in 50 CE the 60-year-old, congenitally ill already a family tradition: Claudius’ brother Germanicus
princeps needed an assured succession and adopted was called this because of the exploits of his father (Nero
book two 203

daughter who had been yoked in marriage by him to Nero;1567 he also had Antonia, from
Petine.1568
(13.1) 2501569 All the ways, then, in which Nero, having become deranged1570 on ac- Claudius dies;
Nero; Nero’s
character. Ant.
20.148, 154
Claudius Drusus) in Germany; when the father died in 9 in 38/39. As a young girl (about 8 years of age) she
BCE, the name became posthumous and hereditary. was betrothed to L. Iunius Silanus, a union that would
As Levick (2001: 56-67) shows, Britannicus was vul- not have been possible before 53 CE (for her to be old
nerable from birth to rivals for power—and this seems enough). When Agrippina married Claudius in 49, how-
a good part of the explanation for his teenage mother’s ever, she saw this planned marriage as a threat to her
alliances and sexual liaisons with powerful men: to son Domitius’ advancement: Tacitus claims that she had
protect her child’s prospects. According to unanimous intended to marry Domitius (Nero) to Octavia from the
contemporary tradition, the teenage emperor Nero had start (Ann. 12.3), and now arranged matters by having
him poisoned, at a banquet in February 55 CE—with Silanus convicted on fabricated charges of incest. The
the collusion of an expert poisoner and a Praetorian latter then killed himself, leaving Octavia unclaimed—
tribune, who were both later rewarded—to remove the and available for the lad who would soon become her
threat (Ant. 20.152; Tacitus, Ann. 13.15-17; Suetonius, brother: Nero (Tacitus, Ann. 12.4; cf. Levick 2001:
Nero 33.2; Dio 61.1.2; Herodian 4.5.6). For critical dis- 71).
cussion, see Barrett 1996: 170-72, who suggests death 1568
In using such brief indicators without explana-
from tetanoid epilepsy. tion, Josephus appears to assume audience knowledge;
It was also reported that that the future princeps Titus, Ant. 20.149-50 gives a fuller summary. Although Niese
a boyhood friend of Britannicus, drank from the same changes to Παιτίνη to match her known Latin name
cup and narrowly escaped death (Suetonius, Tit. 2). But (Paetina), all the MSS have Πετίνη; Latin has agrip-
since Britannicus’ memory was conspicuously honored
pina, confusingly. Aelia Paetina was Claudius’ 2nd wife,
by the Flavians, with statues and coins, modern scholars
taken after his divorce in the mid-20s from the reportedly
tend to the view that part of the Flavian legitimation
violent and adulterous Plautia Urgulanilla, and would
strategy was their self-presentation as reclaimers of an
later again be among the candidates for 4th wife (Levick
abortive Claudian-Britannican tradition, a view that both
2001: 24-25, 70). Claudius and Paetina must have mar-
Suetonius’ notice and Josephus here are understood to be
ried by 28 CE, Levick notes, to allow for the marriage
echoing (cf. Barrett 1996: 71; Levick 2001: 190-91).
1566
Although MSS PAM have one σ, her name was of their daughter Antonia to Cn. Pompeius Magnus in
Valeria Messallina. It seems that Claudius divorced Aelia 41. Josephus’ implication that Antonia and her husband
Paetina, wife of about 10 years, for Messallina chiefly could have provided Claudius with an alternative heir
because of her favorable political associations, which is a problem: her first husband was killed after being
better suited his rising status in the late 30s. She was in caught in a same-sex liaison (in 47 CE), possibly at Mes-
her late teens, whereas Claudius was nearing 50, but she sallina’s instigation; and Antonia’s remarriage to Faustus
was the great-grand-daughter of Augustus’ sister Octavia Sulla, Messallina’s half-brother, would not have helped
(via two lines), Claudius’ own cousin once removed, and their prospects after Messallina’s death (Levick 2001:
like him a descendant of Marc Antony (Levick 2001: 61, 70).
1569
55). On the significance of her sexual affairs and moves The following paragraph reads like a précis of
against rivals, see previous note. It was one such affair the material elaborated in Ant. 20.152-57, especially
that precipitated her downfall: she fell in love with a con- in the clipped reference to family members’ murders
sul-designate (for 49 CE), Gaius Silius. Tacitus relates and the final note about returning to Judean matters. Yet
the story in detail (Ann. 11.25-38): the pair decided to it is diferent in tone from the later version, which not
marry, and even have friends witness the event, while only lacks any reference to Nero’s insanity or savagery,
Claudius was away in Ostia; Silius would adopt Britan- but also attacks both his flatterers and his harsh critics
nicus and rise to supreme power. But the freedman Nar- (“liars,” Josephus says), whereas this passage is itself
cissus, who knew that a change of princeps would mean hostile. Although this difference between War and Antiq-
his own removal, drove Claudius onward in relentless uities might be explained as a change in Josephus’ actual
prosecution of the couple. The disgraced Messallina was perspective, or his parroting here an early Flavian line
assisted in her suicide by a tribune of the Guard (over about the despicable Nero (whose monstrosities the Fla-
which Narcissus had managed to win command for one vians were keen to erase), or his reassessment of sources
day). Cf. Levick 2001: 63-67. in the later work, such changes of perspective are the
1567
Claudia Octavia was the first child of Claudius norm wherever War material is reprised in Antiquities-
and Messallina, born about a year after their marriage Life, so that overarching explanations on the basis of new
204 book two

count of a superabundance of prosperity1571 and indeed of wealth, abused fortune,1572 or in

what manner he went through1573 his brother, his wife, and his mother,1574 from whom he
transferred his savagery to the best born,1575 251 and how finally by reason of insanity1576

allegiances or other biographically connected agendas it of the “bad emperors” Gaius and Nero, as also of
seem arbitrary. some Judean rebels. On fortune, see further the note at
The portrait of Nero here is not simply that of his 2.373 below.
1573
hostile detractors. Champlin compellingly argues (2003: This is a curious euphemism, though perhaps
84-111) that Nero himself advertised and possibly even deliberately mild (and sarcastic), for a Roman audience
inflated his misdeeds as a function of his mythical self- who knows the stories all too well, as Josephus allows.
1574
representation (as Orestes, Oedipus, Alcmaeon, and Her- As the later parallel (Ant. 20.153) spells out,
cules furens), possibly seeking to explain and justify his Josephus has in view: Britannicus, Claudius’ son by
“heroic” actions, including flaws, to the public. Messallina and Nero’s brother by adoption, killed in 55;
1570
This is the only occurrence of otherwise common Britannicus’ older sister Octavia (still only 19), whose
παραφρονέω in Josephus. The implication of the aor- betrothed husband had been removed so she could marry
ist participle here and of the reference to Nero’s “final” Nero, and who was banished twice and then killed in 62,
insanity below (2.251)—viz., that his rule changed for to facilitate his marriage to Poppea Sabina (Tacitus, Ann.
the worse in mid-course—fits with the standard Roman 14.60-64—and Poppea too would be killed by Nero); and
portrait (e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 15.67): a promising start, his mother Agrippina, reportedly beaten to death in 59,
the so-called quinquennium Neronis, a 5-year period of after a failed attempt to drown her (Tacitus, Ann. 14.2-8).
stability while the youth was willing to be guided by Of Agrippina, Josephus elaborates that Nero murdered
Seneca and Burrus, ended with Nero’s murder of his her openly (in contrast to his concealed poisoning of
mother Agrippina in 59, after which he increasingly went Britannicus in the text and, as the audience knew, to the
off the rails, becoming insanely preoccupied with singing failed secret attempt to drown her in a boating accident):
and acting (cf. Pliny, Nat. 30.5). More generally, it was “this was the reward he paid her, not only for birth but
a common notion that the “bad” emperors (also Gaius also for her having secured the Roman imperium for him
and Domitian) had begun well but then degenerated, a through her stratagems.” See the notes to the preceding
theory that fit also with the established model of mon- section.
1575
archy’s inevitable decay into tyranny (Herodotus 3.80; Ant. 20.153 adds to the family murders that Nero
Plato, Resp. 8.565-69; Aristotle, Pol. 3.5.4 [1279b]; 4.8 also killed “many illustrious men, as if they had laid
[1295a]; Polybius 6.4.8; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.55.3). plots against him.” Nero’s high-born victims included
For a sustained challenge to the claim that Nero was Iunius SIlanus at the beginning of his reign (Tacitus,
deranged, see Champlin 2003: e.g., 64-68. Nero himself Ann. 13.1); from Josephus’ reference to perceived plots,
partly promoted the idea of madness by casting himself he no doubt has in view chiefly C. Calpurnius Piso (Ann.
as Hercules furens in the theater, thus obliquely explain- 15.48) and the others caught up in his unmasked conspir-
ing to the public his unintended killing of Poppea Sabina acy of 65 CE: Flavius Scaevinus, Afranius Quintianus
in a fit of madness (so Champlin 2003: 106-7). (Ann. 15.49), Seneca the Younger (former praetor),
1571
A paradoxical phrase (δι᾿ ὑπερβολὴν εὐδαιµο- M. Annaeus Lucanus (Ann. 15.70), the consul M. Iulius
νίας), found also in the Athenian orators (Isocrates, Bus. Vestinus Atticus (Ann. 15.52), and the consul-desig-
14; Phil. 69; cf. Diodorus 5.19.5; Philo, Abr. 115), given nate Plautius Lateranus (Ann. 15.61). Other notable
that εὐδαιµονία was generally accepted as the goal of casualties of Nero’s later reign were Cn. Domitius Cor-
the philosophical life and is featured by Josephus (151 bulo, P. Clodius Thrase-a Paetus, and Borea Soranus
occurrences of cognates) as the promise of the Judean (Ann. 16.21), not to mention numerous knights and
constitution (e.g., War 1.11, 68-69, 86; Ant. 1.14, 20, 41, soldiers.
1576
44, 46; 3.84, 99, 274; 4.27, 414). It is often best rendered Greek φρενοβλάβεια; see the note at 2.105.
“happiness, well-being, good spirits,” of which material Thackeray (here and subsequently) has “infatuation.”
prosperity was a part. Can one have an excess of hap- Pliny (Nat. 30.5) makes a strikingly similar connec-
piness or prosperity? Perhaps if one is sole ruler of the tion between Nero’s theatrical pursuits and a perversity
earth (and this may entail an implicit critique of monar- brought on by his unique fortune. For a compelling argu-
chy): whereas most people must strive after εὐδαιµονία, ment against the assumption of Nero’s detractors that
Nero had too much and it ruined him. his exploits in the theater were insane, since he pursued
1572
See the note to this phrase at 2.184: Josephus uses these interests with remarkable discipline from an early
book two 205

he drifted1577 into stage and theater1578—since this is burdensome for everyone1579 I shall
leave it aside and turn to the things that happened to the Judeans in his time.1580
(13.2) 252 And so he gave* Lesser Armenia1581 to Aristobulus the son of Herod1582 to Agrippa
rule as king,1583 and he added* to the kingdom of Agrippa four cities with their toparchies, receives four
cities. Ant.
Abela1584 and Iulias in Perea,1585 and Tarichea1586 and Tiberias of Galilee,1587 and for the 20.158
remainder of Judea1588 he established Felix as procurator.1589

age (without any attempt to whitewash his crimes), see nia” at 2.222); this region and Armenia Maior were both
Champlin 2003: 53-83; cf. Griffin 1984: 119-63. well known to Josephus’ Roman audience because of
1577
This metaphorical language evokes a ship foun- important events during the 60s. Armenia Minor was in
dering off course: perhaps the ship of state, with the Asia Minor, N of Cappadocia and SE of Pontus, W of
person who should be its competent helmsman losing his the Euphrates; it was centered in the city of Nicopolis
way (Plato, Pol. 296e, 297e-299c, 302a; Resp. 341c-d; (Yeilyayla, Suehri, Sivas), in modern Turkey.
1582
Plutarch, Phil. 17.3-4; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 48.14). That is, Herod of Chalcis, d. 48 CE (see 2.217,
1578
On Nero’s infamous (but evidently serious) pas- 221, 223).
1583
sion for singing, lyre playing, and chariot-racing, even For this new kingship see Ant. 20.158. Tacitus
rigging competitions in Naples, Rome, and Achaea, see also mentions it (Ann. 13.7).
1584
Suetonius, Nero 20-25; Tacitus, Ann. 14.14; 15.65; 16.4; See the note to “Lysanias” at 2.247. Ant. 20.138
Dio 63.8.1-11.1; Griffin 1984: 119-63; Champlin 2003: identifies this as Lysanias’ former tetrarchy, N and W of
53-83. Damascus (in the saddle between Mt. Hermon to the S
1579
Greek ἐπειδὴ δι᾿ ὄχλου πᾶσίν ἐστιν. See Feld- and the Antilebanon range to the N), given to Agrippa
man’s note to this phrase in BJP 3 at Ant. 3.197, in already by Claudius.
1585
the same sort of context: Josephus begs off describing A foundation of Herod Antipas in honor of Augus-
things that might lose his audience’s attention. He will tus’ wife Livia (later Iulia). See the notes to “Betharama-
use the same phrase in a similar context at War 4.496, tha” at 2.59 and to “Iulias” at 2.168. The parallel (Ant.
in declining to discuss the recent Roman civil war. There 20.159) claims that 14 villages went with Iulias as its
he explains why such a discussion would be burden- hinterland. The Latin translation shows considerable con-
some: the story is already well known through many fusion here in reading in iturea—regione (Iturea lying in
other accounts. The same point is made in the parallel the Bekaa valley far to the N).
1586
to the present passage (Ant. 20.154): many historians This site, also known as Magdala (“tower-place”),
have told the story of Nero. Tacitus occasionally interacts about 6 km (3.75 miles) N of Tiberias along the W shore
directly with some of those other accounts (e.g., Ann. of Lake Kinneret, will become an important base for
14.2). Champlin (2003: 36-52) identifies the elder Pliny Josephus as he tries to command Galilee during the early
(a hostile outsider), Fabius Rusticus (also hostile), and revolt. See the note at 2.596.
1587
Cluvius Rufus (a close associate of Nero’s, and more Tiberias was controversially founded in 18/19
neutral) as the main contemporary sources, known to us CE as a new capital by Antipas (Ant. 18.36-38), who
though their works were lost, who were used by Tacitus, once gave his struggling young nephew, Agrippa II’s
Suetonius, and Cassius Dio (the largely extant sources father, an administrative position there (18.149). Nero’s
for Nero). In the parallel, Josephus adds the intriguing gift of these cities with their hinterlands to Agrippa II
observation that those who were treated well by Nero would become a significant grievance among the Tibe-
have in their gratitude ignored the truth—a helpful rians, exploited by Justus of Tiberias to fan the flames
reminder that much more positive assessments of Nero of revolt, because of the loss of prestige that resulted
once circulated—while he condemns both flattery and (Life 38-40). Josephus will base himself in Tiberias and
denunciation as unworthy of the historian (cf. War 1.1-2; Tarichea (2.568, 572, 596ff.), strategically located for
Tacitus, Ann. 1.1). access to the Great (Jezreel) Plain, Lower Galilee, the
1580
In the parallel Josephus makes the segue with a Beit Netofa valley, and Gamala in the Golan.
1588
more extended critique of the current work on Nero (in “The remainder of Judea” (τὴν λοιπὴν Ἰου-
some tension with his claim not to deal with it because δαίαν)—i.e., minus these Galilean, Perean, and northern
so many others have): whereas all these writers are heav- centers. This notice thus assumes a broad meaning for
ily biased, he has an obligation to tell both sides of the “Judea”; see the note to “as well as” at 2.247.
1589
Judean story, including misfortunes and mistakes (Ant. Felix had been sent out by Claudius (2.247). Nero
20.157). confirms his appointment, after excising a few cities
1581
Or Armenia Minor (see note to “Greater Arme- from his province for presentation to Agrippa II.
206 book two

Felix captures 253 This [Felix] captured alive both the chief bandit1590 Eleazar,1591 who had been
brigand chief plundering1592 the countryside for twenty years,1593 and many of those with him,1594 and
Eleazar bar
Deineus. Ant. sent [them] up to Rome.1595 Of the bandits who were crucified by him and of the com-
20.160 mon folk1596 discovered to be in league1597 [with them] whom he punished, there was some
Appearance countless horde.1598
of sicarii in (13.3) 254 After the countryside1599 had been purged,1600 however, a different species1601
Jerusalem. Ant.
20.165 (cf. 186)

1590 1596
See the note to this phrase at 2.56. This is the first of 13 occurrences of δηµότης
1591
Ant. 20.161 elaborates, or this passage condenses: in Josephus, all in War . Whereas in classical Greek the
Eleazar son of Deineus (as at War 2.235), who had term often emphasizes a class distinction (“non-élite,”
“established the company of bandits,” was tricked by cf. LSJ), Josephus’ frequent mention of the “eminent”
Felix. After extending a pledge of security, the governor or “notables” among this group (2.533; 4.336; 6.302,
promptly arrested him. In War, Josephus does not clearly 356) indicates a different sense. He uses the term gener-
identify this Eleazar as son of Deineus; he does connect ally to distinguish the hard core of “bandits” and their
him with the (already existing) bandit bloc, but there are leaders from the good and ordinary people (whom he
many Eleazars in the narrative, several connected with consistently describes as opposed to revolt): 2.533, 624,
“banditry,” and since Josephus introduced an Alexander 646; 4.336, 353; 5.21, 336, 440, 453. Here, there is obvi-
as colleague of Eleazar son of Deineus, who is not pres- ously no opposition between bandits and common folk;
ent here, the identifcation is far from obvious. This is one see next note.
1597
of many indications that he does not expect his audience This notice lends some support to models of
(or readership) to follow such links through; it may be a “social banditry” in the 1st century, according to which
clue that he intended oral presentation rather than careful bandits were largely agents of revolution against the
study of the text. establishment, a militant wing that nonetheless enjoyed
1592
The verb (ληίζοµαι) is cognate to the nouns “ban- the widespread support (including shelter and supply) of
dit” (λῃστής) and “chief bandit”: this is what bandits, the common poor; parallels have been found in modern
by definition, do. Spain and Latin America (cf. Hobsbawm 1972; Hors-
1593
A detail found only here (absent also from the ley 1979; Horsley and Hanson 1988; cf. Laitin 1995).
Antiquities parallel). It would help to explain Eleazar’s Such models have faced trenchant critique, especially
ability to take over the leadership of the other Judeans, from Brent Shaw (1984), for ignoring fundamental social
or their invitation to him (Ant. 20.121), if he had been a structures of ancient society, according to which “ban-
well known and long-established militia leader. ditry” was often vertically aligned—around powerful
1594
On governors’ fundamental responsibilities for men (see note to “bandit” at Life 21 in BJP 9). In War ,
dealing with provincial banditry, see the note to “ban- too, we frequently see bandits assembled around men
dits” at 2.229. Ant. 20.161 says that he “had orga- of substance and standing (see note to “chief bandit”
nized the [singular] company of bandits,” suggesting at 2.56). Although class struggle in the post-industrial
as this passage does a consolidation of “bandit” (and Marxist sense does not work as a general explanation of
guerrilla?) activities under Eleazar’s leadership at the the revolt (or pre-revolt banditry), pace Faulkner 2004,
time. certainly Josephus indicates elements of class conflict in
1595
See the note to “Deineus” at 2.235: the contrast pre-war Judea (notably War 2.426-27). Cf. Brunt 1990:
between Eleazar’s being sent to Rome and the on-site 282-87.
1598
crucifixion of a vast number of more ordinary bandits Here we have a distinctive stylistic trait of Jose-
may suggest that he he was a man of social status, possi- phus: he uses the phrase ἄπειρόν τι πλῆθος 7 times (also
bly even a Roman citizen. Felix also dispatched a number 2.543, 592; Ant. 2.300; 4.163; 5.48; 9.219), though it is
of other offenders to Rome, including some aristocratic unattested before his time except in a pseudo-Platonic
friends of Josephus, sent—he claims—on a “minor and work (Stephanus 404a). For the phrase without the pro-
incidental charge,” whose release he secured through a noun, see the note at 2.43.
1599
personal embassy (Life 13; see notes in BJP 9). The NT Josephus picks up on what he has just said, that
book of Acts dates the apostle Paul’s Judean imprison- Eleazar’s bandits were based in the countryside (χώρα);
ment to about 2 years before the end of Felix’s term (ca. he moves now to a contrast with the major city, Jeru-
57 CE?), though it claims that Felix kept him in prison, salem.
1600
expecting a bribe for his release. It was his successor Or “purified” or simply “cleared, cleaned” (κα-
Festus who obliged Paul’s request, on the strength of θαίρω, καθαρός). This is charged language in War , the
Roman citizenship, for a hearing before Nero in Rome potential remedy for the pollution (µιαίνω, µίασµα,
(Acts 23:23-24:27). µιαρός—cf. 6.110) created by the rebels, especially of
book two 207

of bandits1602 was creeping up1603 in Hierosolyma, those called sicarii:1604 murdering people

the temple; see the notes to “pollutes” and “polluted” at a trend of dispatching one’s enemies with concealed dag-
2.132, 210. This is a considerable, if incidental, compli- gers (see the note to “first” at 2.256 below); only under
ment to Felix’s abilities as governor, since governor’s Festus does the practice or the group (?) receive a name
primary responsibility was to neutralize bandits and pre- there.
vent other causes of disorder; see note to “bandits” at Within War, moreover, Josephus’ usage of the term
2.229. shows a degree of slippage. Certain sicarii, still carrying
1601
Or “forms, kinds”; see the note to “forms” at this name that Josephus connects with a technique for
2.119. We translate εἶδος as “species” here because of urban assassination (not with an ideology), will go to
the botanical verb that follows, suggesting a sort of Aris- Masada under Eleazar’s leadership (4.400, 516; 7.253-
totelian scientific analysis. 311); yet after the reportedly complete self-destruction
1602
See the note to “chief bandit” at 2.56. of the group there, a substantial number of sicarii (600-
1603
All 3 occurrences of ἐπιφύω in Josephus (also 1,000?) escape to Alexandria from somewhere to cause
Ant. 13.2; 15.44) have a distinctly disparaging tone. The further trouble (7.410-19). Yet again, after they have been
same tone is present in Josephus’ use of παραφύοµαι—in removed to a man (7.416), “the madness of the sicarii”
connection with the Pharisees (War 1.110). reappears in Cyrene—in the odd form of a general
1604
Lit. “knifers,” from Latin sica (a type of dagger). trouble-maker (not apparently an urban dagger-assas-
Josephus will partly explain the name here (2.255) and sin) named Jonathan (7.437-44; for analysis, Brighton
offer a brief reminder at their next appearance (2.425). 2005: esp. 194-201). Even in the present passage, Jose-
Only Ant. 20.186 will describe the weapons in question
phus describes former friends using concealed knives to
(see note to “daggers” at 2.255). His use of a transliter-
eliminate each other as part of the same social problem
ated Latin term in this Atticizing Greek composition is
(2.254, 255-56): this does not sound like a political or
revealing of his assumptions concerning audience knowl-
militant organization, but only a means of killing; the
edge. He expects them to know the meaning of Latin
label sicarii seems to lack content.
sica and sicarii, but needs to elaborate on the particular
Further, it seems odd that a group should be known
activity connecting these Judeans with daggers. (It may
exclusively for its modus operandi: not “swords of righ-
be that he is condensing an account such as that behind
teousness” or similar, but simply “wielders of the small
Ant. 20.186.)
curved dagger,” with no indications of motive or pur-
Romans knew the law from Sulla’s time (ca. 81 BCE)
concerning sicarii and poisoners or sorcerers (lex Cor- pose. The label is thus comparable to most of Josephus’
nelia de sicariis et venefi ciis): it covered a considerable other favored labels (“bandits, revolutionaries, rebels,”
range of offenses (Justinian, Dig. 48.1; Inst. 4.18.5) etc.). If his category “bandits” has something like the
and was perhaps aimed initially at gangsters more than force of modern “terrorists,” sicarii has the vividness—
murderers (Cloud 1969; cf. Rives 2006). Cicero’s pro and corresponding vagueness—of modern “cut-throats,”
Cluentio and pro Sestio are largely devoted to defend- “gunmen,” or “bombers.”
ing clients charged under this legislation; cf. Quintilian, Finally, it is perplexing (though seldom pondered in
Inst. 10.1.12. scholarship) that a Judean militant or “nationalist” group
Scholarship on the sicarii of Judea, assuming that they should have been known by, and built its identity around,
were a coherent and self-conscious group, undertakes to a Latin name. To suggest, as is usual, that the tag was
define their place vis-à-vis other groups (Hengel 1989: applied by Roman authorities only deepens the problem,
396-97; Zeitlin 1965, 1967; Smith 1971; Horsley 1979; because the sole reason given by Josephus for their name
for analysis, Brighton 2005: 1-32). Some basic prob- concerns their use of the sica-like knife (2.425; Ant.
lems are overlooked in this kind of search, however (cf. 20.186). What, if anything, did they call themselves? It
Firpo 1997: 709-11). First, although Josephus’ language would require an implausible sense of irony on their part
can seem to imply that sicarii formed a group (e.g., by to imagine that they cherished the name sicarii. Nor is it
saying that “they were called sicarii” [cf. 2.425; 4.400, easy to imagine either the Hebrew- and Aramaic-speak-
516; 7.410], much as other groups “were called” Essenes ing Judean élite or the Greek-speaking auxiliary forces
or Pharisees [2.119]), other indicators leave room for in Judea bestowing the label. And one is hard pressed to
doubt. Here, e.g., it seems that sicarii were establishing conceive of a Roman procurator caring enough to define
themselves by name under Nero, and Jonathan was the one particular group of Judean trouble-makers in distinc-
first victim of many, whereas in Ant. 20.162-66, 185-88 tion from others. Hengel, realizing the problem, suggests
Jonathan’s murder is a unique contract-killing (not an that the Romans called some Judean rebels sicarii, that
activity of a group called sicarii), which sets in motion it was taken over by the group(s) themselves as a badge
208 book two

by day and in the middle of the city, 255 and during the festivals,1605 especially, mingling
with the mob and concealing small daggers1606 under their clothes,1607 with these they
would stab their foes.1608 Then, when the latter had fallen, those who had committed the
murders would take the part of those who were indignant at1609 [the murder], so that they
would go completely undiscovered1610 by virtue of [their] credibility.1611

1605
of honor (cf. Protestant, Huguenot), and that the Judeans For festivals as times of upheaval, see the note to
themselves broadened its usage (1989: 49, 396-97). But “subversive” at 2.224. Here Josephus will continue to
which “Romans” (in the absence of local legions) had develop one of War ’s basic themes (see e.g. 2.30): that
such a motive for fine observation of specific groups? precisely at the festivals appointed for celebrating libera-
And does the Latin for “knifers” really have the sort of tion and divine blessing, the Judeans had become most
potential that “protestant” had (unless the groups were vulnerable to attack, enslaved, and fearful (see 4.402,
proud criminal gangs)? The main problem is that Jose- linking sicarii activities with the Passover-liberation sea-
phus’ evidence (above), our nearly exclusive source in son). In this case, a former high priest is the first victim
the period, remains unexplained. of slaughter (2.256).
1606
It is curious that Hengel should argue from the nearly Greek µικρὰ ξιφίδια. At 2.425 Josephus will
exclusive use of the term by Josephus (1989: 396) that speak less precisely of “swords” under the robes, though
“it was apparently introduced by the Romans.” That Jose- at Ant. 20.186 (describing the sicarii under Festus) he
phus himself might have conjured the Latin sicarii for will pause to describe the small daggers in question:
his literary purposes, as he writes in Rome, is not wholly approximating the size of the Persian acinaces (or scimi-
implausible. The main problems are (a) the appearance tar) but more curved and like the Roman sica; hence
of the name in Acts and rabbinic literature and (b) his the name applied to these bandits. The sica was known
repeated claim (here and 4.400) that “they are called [or in Rome as the “Thracian sword (or dagger),” because
styled] sicarii.” But the sole reference to sicarii in Acts of its use by the “Thracian” type of gladiator. Its sharp
(21:38) is either confused or ironic, in having them led curve made it a particularly brutal weapon. Whereas the
by “the Egyptian” (cf. 2.261-63 below) into the desert, Thracian sica was about the length of the straight sword
a confusion perhaps best explained as a faulty recollec- (gladius), however, Josephus implies that the Judean
tion of Josephus’ narratives (so Mason 2003c: 151-96). weapon was smaller and more easily concealed, though
As for the Talmud: m. Maksh. 1.6 may mention ‫סקריון‬, with a similarly radical curve.
but the MS variant has ‫סיקריקין‬, matching the Mishnah’s 1607
At Ant. 15.282 Josephus will describe a plot
other references to sikarikon in connection with land against King Herod, in which his would-be assassins
purchases (m. Bik. 1.2; 2.3; Git. 5.6), which appear to concealed daggers (ξιφίδια) under their clothes. Ironi-
refer to something other than sicarii (cf. Hengel 1989: cally, Josephus will direct his own bodyguards to adopt
51-53). The clearest reference comes only from the the same practice, to protect him in close quarters from
Bavli—compiled after the same half-millennium inter- his enemies; he did the same, except that he used an
val from Josephus that separates us from the German armored vest and full sword beneath his cloak (Life 293,
Reformation—which identifies one ben Batiah, nephew 303).
1608
of Yohanan ben Zakkai, as “Abba Sikra” and head of the Greek τοὺς διαφόρους. Were it not for the rep-
biryoni (“thugs”) in Jerusalem at the beginning of the etition of the phrase in 2.257, one might translate this
war (b. Git. 56a). If the Talmud here preserves an authen- absolute phrase as “the distinguished”: these assassins
tic tradition from before 70, and if it is independent of were destroying sections of the élite (as in 2.425-26).
Josephus’ famous narratives, and if “Sikra” derives from But in 2.257 it is the potential victims who watch these
sicarii, then the label was not Josephus’ literary inven- “differing ones” as threats to themselves.
1609
tion. But those conditions are far from being clearly met. This compound verb (ἐπαγανακτέω), only here in
As for “being called sicarii,” the passage in which he Josephus, is exceedingly rare. It is unattested in literature
speaks of “the sicarii and those who were called bandits” before his time, but is used by his younger contemporary
(Ant. 20.186) seems a good index to the looseness of his Plutarch (Alc. 14.12; Ages. 19.6) and very rarely there-
language. If “bandit” was no real group label, but chiefly after (Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11 [73.5]; then
supplied by Josephus himself, then there is no reason to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.20 quoting Josephus).
1610
treat the sicarii label any differently. This is the only occurrence of ἀνεύρετος in Jose-
Whatever the original use of sicarii in Judea may phus; it is a word with slight attestation before his time—
have been, Josephus has eagerly absorbed it into his arse- mainly in philosophical contexts (e.g., Xenophanes, Test.
nal of disparaging labels for trouble-makers, apparently frag. 1; Plato, Crat. 421d; Pol. 294d; Leg. 874a; Chry-
with a Latin-speaking audience in view. sippus, SVF Frag. 657; Philo, Somn. 1.8, 17; Fug. 153).
book two 209

256 First, then, Ionathes the high priest1612 was butchered*1613 by them, but after him Murder of for-
many were being done away with every day;1614 and even more difficult than these ca- mer high priest
Jonathan. Ant.
lamities was the fear of them,1615 with each [person] expecting death every hour,1616 just 20.162
as in war. 257 They would scrutinize their foes1617 from a distance; there was no trust1618
even among approaching friends,1619 but in the midst of their suspicions and efforts at
security1620 they would be done away with.1621 Such was the alacrity of those who were
plotting and their skill at concealing themselves.
(13.4) 258 A different band of worthless [fellows]1622 united with these—purer in

In the phrase ὑπὸ ἀξιοπιστίας ἦσαν ἀνεύρετοι, then, Ἰουδαίοις ὁ φόβος ἦν. “Calamities” (sing. συµφορά) is
Josephus has connected two very rare words (see next part of a fundamental tragic theme in War ; see the notes
note), after an extremely rare compound verb (previous at 1.9; 2.186.
1616
note), for effect. “Every hour” contrasts with “every day” to provide
1611
Greek ἀξιοπιστία. See the note at 2.103. (rhetorical) justification for the claim that the fear was
1612
“First” (πρῶτος) may be ironic in keeping with the harsher than the murders themselves. If taken earnestly
image of slaughter: the former high priest, who should this would be an absurd proposition, since of course a
have been first in status and honor, who had indeed been person’s fear of death, even if constant or hourly, does not
first in administering the entire cultic system, is now bear comparison with real and brutal death; the (merely)
instead the first sacrificial victim of this new disease. The daily deaths are of different people! Josephus appears to
word is especially significant if Josephus has before him get carried away with his rhetoric as he climbs the tragic
the source of Ant. 20.162. There he will claim that Jona- scale: first an individual, Jonathan, but then many; and
than had been responsible for Felix’s presence in Judea, yet worse was the fear, which affected all; and whereas
having asked Claudius to send him—presumably when the deaths were daily, the fear was hourly, which must be
the high priest had been part of the successful Judean worse! Josephus employs a similar sort of escalation—
delegation to Claudius, appealing against Cumanus and listing terrible atrocities in a rising scale, but declaring
the Samarians (2.243). If this happened, Jonathan may the resulting tension the worst thing of all (depending
have made the proposal as a diplomatic gesture, to help upon the MS reading)—at 2.461-65 below.
1617
win the favor of Claudius’ influential freedman Pallas See the note at 2.255.
1618
(Felix’s brother), who was reportedly hostile to the Judean Or “loyalty, fidelity” (πίστις).
1619
cause (20.135). But once back in Judea, where Felix was According to the parallel (Ant. 20.163) it is Jona-
proving unpopular, Jonathan felt the need to criticize the than’s “most trustworthy friend” (Doras) who arranges
procurator publicly, which reportedly irritated (and no for his murder. Trust and friendship are a common col-
doubt puzzled) him. Felix allegedly arranged his murder location in Josephus (1.470; 2.21, 104; 7.26; Ant. 6.285;
by bribing Jonathan’s best friend, Doras, who in turn 7.5, 24, 211-12; 10.2; 12.402; 13.51; 16.180, 256; Life
hired bandits (20.160-64). Josephus claims there that 79, 163, 234, 378; Apion 2.134), as in other authors,
this execution by means of the bandits’ concealed dag- whether ritualized or personal friendship is in view
gers, because it went unpunished, initiated a trend. Only (formulaic in Homer, Il. 3.73 etc.; Theognis, Eleg. 209;
gradually (by Festus’ time?), it seems, did such bandits Thucydides 4.74.2).
1620
come to be known as sicarii (20.185-86). Or “guarding, protection.” For the Josephan col-
1613
See the note to “butchered” at 2.30. The former location of ὑπόνοια and φυλακή (the word here) see
high priest thus becomes another instance of Josephus’ also Ant. 13.289.
1621
deep thematic link between human and animal slaugh- See the note to sicarii at 2.254: the murders in
ter, especially during festivals (as the previous sentence view here seem to constitute a rash of activity even
indicates). among former friends, not the program of a coherent
1614
Although this phrase (καθ᾿ ἡµέραν) last appeared group known as sicarii.
1622
in bk. 1 (1.587), it will appear 4 times in the next few See the note at 2.156. Here is another clue (see
paragraphs (here and 2.265, 267, 283); this repetition note to sicarii at 2.254) that the dagger-men may not be
helps to escalate the narrative tension as it moves to a a coherent group, even though Josephus first presents
crisis. them as a species (εἶδος) of bandit. The present group
1615
Greek τῶν συµφορῶν ὁ φόβος ἦν χαλεπώτερος. also appears as a “band” (στῖφος: a close-pressed unit,
There is a rough parallel at 7.104: as the Judeans of column, mass), though it quickly becomes clear that they
Antioch anxiously await Titus’ response to the other are not a unified group; the Egyptian and his followers
residents’ appeal for their expulsion: καὶ χαλεπὸς τοῖς (2.261) are but one instance of this analytical category
210 book two

hand1623 to be sure, but more impious1624 in their opinions—who themselves, no less

than the butchers,1625 spoiled1626 the city’s prosperity.1627 259 For deceitful1628 people and
rogues,1629 in a show1630 of divine inspiration1631 busying themselves1632 with revolutionary
matters1633 and upheavals,1634 were persuading the mob to be possessed,1635 and leading

constructed by Josephus. Cf. 4.135: various chief ban- (6.288; Ant. 8.232; 20.167; Apion 2.145, 236). In the
dits with their own organizations will eventually join, parallel (Ant. 20.167) he has “enchanters and rogues” (οἱ
Josephus says, into one band (στῖφος) in Jerusalem— δὲ γόητες καὶ ἀπατεῶνες ἄνθρωποι). All such terms are
except for all the stasis that follows (e.g., 4.353, 362-63, more or less interchangeable, balancing his repertoire of
371-76, 388-97; 5.20-27). labels for the élite. Note incidentally the displacement
1623
I.e., not being polluted with blood. For “pure of “people” (ἄνθρωποι) to accompany “rogues” in the
hands” as a Josephan phrase, see 5.403; Ant. 4.222; parallel passage, which suggests a deliberate reworking
cf. War 2.141. The association is ancient, both classi- of the same material or its source.
1630
cal (Aeschylus, Eum. 313; Herodotus 1.35; Antiphon, Or “cover, screen, pretext” (πρόσχηµα). The word
Caed. Herod. 11, 82; Plato, Leg. 831a, 864e [esp. in is used only here and at 4.154 in War, predicated (as Ant.
relation to murder]; Demosthenes, Tim. 60; Aeschines, 4.146; 14.302; 18.27) of the machinations of tyrants and
Fals. leg. 148) and biblical (LXX Lev 11:27; 14:4, 28; would-be tyrants.
1631
2 Kgs 22:21; Pss 17:21; Isa 1:15-16; Job 17:9). Or “divination, omen, supersitition, divine event”
1624
This (ἀσεβής) is a common evaluative adjective (θειασµός). This rare noun (before Josephus: Thucydides
in Josephus, appearing 60 times (148 including cog- 7.50.4; Nymphis, fr. 11; Polybius 12.12b.1; Dionysius
nates), the opposite of virtuous εὐσεβής (32 times, 145 Thrax, Ars gramm. 1.1.86; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 7.68.1;
all cognates). cf. Plutarch, Nic. 4.1; Her. malign. [Mor.] 855b) occurs
1625
That is, the sicarii just described: the noun is cog- in Josephus again at War 2.650, of omens misconstrued
nate to the verb rendered “butchered” at 2.256. Of this by the rebels in their favor. The word has the same
vivid noun’s (σφαγεύς) 10 occurrences in Josephus, 7 resulting-state form as the one rendered “revolutionary
are in Ant. 19, mostly referring to “Gaius’ butchers.” The matters” (see note below), which stands next to it in the
other occurrence in War (7.395), significantly, has to do Greek; this creates a certain euphony.
1632
with the knife-men (sicarii) of Masada. War uses this verb (πραγµατεύοµαι) 8 times, but
1626
In War the verb λυµαίνω occurs 6 times. Of these, only in bks. 1-2, 5 times in bk. 2 (also 2.283, 318, 560,
3 follow in quick succession here (also 2.271, 278), in 594). In all cases it seems to have a pejorative connota-
connection with the various governors, who change roles tion of busying oneself with some nefarious purpose.
1633
in relation to “spoiling.” Whereas Felix and Festus move This is the first occurrence in War of a noun,
against the despoilers, Albinus and Gessius Florus them- νεωτερισµός, that will become important in Josephus’
selves become the chief despoilers. The culmination of lexicon, especially in his later works (18 times in Antiq-
this development comes with the noun at 2.280 (used uities-Life; cf. War 5.152; 6.343; 7.447). For usage, see
of Florus). the note to “revolutions” at Life 17 in BJP 9. It is the
1627
Or “well-being, happiness” (Greek εὐδαιµονία), resulting-state noun from the verb νεωτερίζω. Although
a key term in Josephus. See the note to “prosperity” at the verb is well attested early and programmatically
2.86. used by Thucydides (1.58.1, 97.1, 102.3, 115.3; 2.73.3;
1628
This is the only occurrence of the adjective πλάνος 3.11.1, 66.2, 72.1, 75.5, 79.1, 82.1; 4.41.3, 51.1, 76.5,
in Josephus. The collocation of πλάνος and ἀπατεών, 80.3, 108.3; 5.14.3, 34.2; Polybius 5.29.9; cf. the note
though seemingly natural, is found chiefly in Judean and to “revolutionary bloc” at 1.4, to “revolution” at 2.5),
early Christian literature (Test. XII 6.9.7; Philo, Prov. fr. this noun is another example of fashionable diction on
1.1; Ignatius, Trall. 6.2-3; Acta Ioann. 85; Acta Paul. Josephus’ part. Unattested in early Greek, including
Thec. 11; Ep. Diogn. 10.7). Thucydides and even Polybius, it begins to appear in
1629
Or “cheats, tricksters”; see the note to “trickery” Plato (4 times) and Demosthenes (1); Diodorus, Diony-
at 2.106. The only other occurrence of ἀπατεών in War sius, Strabo, and Philo use it a few times (7, 3, 4, and 7,
is at 6.288, which forms a roughly symmetrical paral- respectively). Only Josephus’ contemporary and fellow-
lel to this passage. There too the burdened populace is statesman Plutarch matches his own interest in the word
imposed upon by rogues, who are paired in that case (with 36 occurrences).
1634
with false messengers of God (καταψευδόµενοι τοῦ This is again programmatic language in Josephus;
θεοῦ)—likewise in the context of omens. Josephus typi- see the note to “upheaval” (µεταβολή) at 1.5, and to
cally pairs ἀπατεών with some other disparaging term “reversal of circumstances” at 2.113. This collocation
book two 211

them out into the desert1636 so that God would there show them signs of freedom.1637 260
Felix, since he reckoned this to be a foundation for rebellion,1638 sent cavalry and heavy
infantry against them and destroyed a vast mob.1639
(13.5) 261 Yet it was with a worse blow than this that the Egyptian1640 pseudoprophet1641 The Egyptian
leads crowd
to Mount of
Olives. Ant.
20.169
(µεταβολή, νεωτερισµός) is not attested in literature in connection with Gaius’ assassination: there, Romans
before Josephus, though he has it also at Ant. 15.30. That are seeking liberation from their own ruler just as other
his contemporary, Plutarch, uses it several times (Lys. nations hope for liberation from Rome. A symmetrical
24.2; Galb. 18.3; Mor. [Reg. imp.] 204a; [Is. Or.] 380) counterpart to this passage within War (see note to “pseu-
seems to confirm that Josephus is using language that doprophet” at 2.261), at 6.285, describes those who have
is in the air among his contemporary Greek statesmen- been duped to follow another pseudo-prophet in hopes
authors. of “the signs of deliverance” (τὰ σηµεῖα τῆς σωτηρίας).
1635
A rare and, in Josephus’ hands, strongly pejora- The phrase here has older Greek roots: Isocrates, Arch.
tive verb (δαιµονάω); he will use it again only at War 7; Ps-Lysias, Epitaph. 14; Aristotle, Pol. 1317b; Rhet.
7.389: of the Masada rebels, who proceed to their mass 1383b. There, however, it tends to mean “evidence of
murder-suicide like people possessed. Note his under- freedom” rather than divine signs or wonders.
standing of possession at 7.185: the spirits of bad men On “freedom” as a Leitmotif of War , see the notes to
inhabit and kill the living (unless the infected can be “self-government” at 2.22 and “slavery” at 2.185, 209,
treated in time); cf. Ant. 8.44-49. For the important and as well as 2.264 with notes below. Josephus’ use of the
more neutral category of the “daimonic,” see the note to term here is sarcastic: all such attempts to secure “free-
“other-worldly” at 2.455. dom” by military means or through direct appeals to God
1636
The Judean desert (E, NE, and SE of Jerusalem) are doomed to failure. True freedom is not incompatible
was a constant presence, for residents of the city no more with foreign rule, if the Judeans will allow their own
than a couple of hours’ walk. It was a customary place priestly aristocracy to manage internal affairs.
1638
for encountering God (e.g., Exod 3:18; 4:27; 5:1; 7:16; Greek ἀποστάσεως . . . καταβολή. The lat-
Ps. 55:7; 68:7; 78:52; Isa 35:1, 6; 40:3; 1QS 8.13-14; ter noun occurs in War only in bk. 2, where its other
1QM 1.2-3; Mark 1:3-4, 12), but also a haven for refu- appearances (2.409, 417) both refer to the foundation
gees from the city and/or the authorities (1 Sam 25:1; for war (πολέµου καταβολή), created by the refusal of
26:2-3; 1 Macc 2.29-31; 9.33; 2 Macc 5.27). the young temple captain and his associates to continue
1637
Greek σηµεῖα ἐλευθερίας: in sense, “signs of the customary sacrifice for foreigners. This passage is
liberation”—messianic or apocalyptic signs. The para- in the same semantic domain. On ἀπόστασις, see the
digmatic signs (‫ )אותות‬of deliverance/freedom were note at 2.39.
1639
those of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod 4:9, 17, 28-30; Whereas this account implies that units dispatched
7:3; 10:1-2; Deut 4:34; 6:22; 11:3; 29:3; Ps 78:43; Jer by Felix killed these people as they found them, the
32:20; Bar 2:11). Note Josephus’ similar language at Ant. parallel (Ant. 20.168) suggests that the dupes were first
2.327: the masses who opposed Moses after the exodus rounded up and then punished by Felix himself (or at
had forgotten “the signs from God that had occurred his order).
1640
for their freedom” (τῶν ἐκ θεοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν On this figure see also Ant. 20.169-72; Acts 21:38.
αὐτοῖς σηµείων γεγονότων). The freedom from slavery It is striking that the man should be known by this ethnic
achieved in the Exodus became the paradigm for all later label—rather than by his name, and not by his Judean
hopes of liberation (hence the significance of Passover identity: for Josephus he was an Egyptian who harmed
in War; cf. Colautti 2002 and notes to Pascha at 2.10, the Judeans. But was he not also a Ioudaios? (If not,
to “throats cut” at 2.30): cf. 2 Esdr. 5:1, 13; 6:20; 7:26; how did he attract such a following, and why did he
8:63; 13:44; 1 Cor 1:22; Mark 8:11-12; 13:22; Luke have such an interest in Jerusalem?) In Alexandrian poli-
11:16; John 2:18, 23; 3:2; 4:48; 7:31; 11:47-48; Acts tics the label “Egyptian” was a slur: Egyptians of native
2:28; 7:36. From a perspective quite different from Jose- ancestry were sharply distinguished from Alexandrians,
phus’, the gospel writers attribute to Jesus a remarkably whose ancestry (though thoroughly mixed by the 1st cent.
similar observation (also 2.261 below): “Pseudo-messi- CE) and culture derived from Greco-Macedonian roots,
ahs and pseudo-prophets (ψευδοπροφῆται) will appear as also from the Judeans, who continually angled for
and produce signs and omens (σηµεῖα καὶ τέρατα), with equality with the Alexandrians. In the Apion Josephus
the aim of deceiving (πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾶν) if possible is keen to disassociate Judeans from their widely pre-
the chosen” (Mark 13:22). sumed Egyptian ancestry (e.g., 2.8); most revealing is his
In Josephus the phrase “signs of freedom” appears in attack on Apion for asserting the Egyptian ancestry of
the singular (σηµεῖον ἐλευθερίας) at Ant. 19.54 (cf. 186) the Judeans while denying his own Egyptian identity (“he
212 book two

damaged the Judeans. This enchanter1642 fellow appeared in the countryside1643 and, hav-

falsely claimed to be an Alexandrian”; Apion 2.28-30; all manteis in his narrative (foreign seers) are suspect;
see Barclay ad loc. in BJP 10). (b) prophecy is a category in which he has a large stake,
That Josephus identifies this man only as “the Egyp- as a unique Judean gift and the guarantor of truth in the
tian” could mean either that this was the only way Judean constitution; (c) he is adding local color that will
the man was known (odd, given that there must have nevertheless be understood by his audience (given that
been many Judeans from Egypt and Alexandria passing his chosen word is Greek and not a barbarian translitera-
through Jerusalem; it is hard to imagine someone being tion); and (d) he perhaps unoncsciously reflects his great
known as “the American” in London), that he does not conceptual debt to Jeremiah and Daniel. See Feldman
know his name (curious, given that he claims to know 1990; Gray 1993; Mason 1994.
1642
the names of even obscure troublemakers), or that he This is the first occurrence in War of γόης, which
intends disparagement by this label. Most remarkable is Josephus adds to his stock of abusive labels for trouble-
Acts’ use of the same epithet in place of a name—and makers (also 2.264 below; 4.85; 5.317; Ant. 20.97, 160,
apparent misuse of it, by having the Egyptian leading 167, 188; Apion 2.145, 161). In origin the word indicates
sicarii into the desert (Acts 21:38). That might suggest someone who wails or howls out enchantments (γοάω):
the author’s dependence upon Josephus. hence a wizard or sorcerer. Using the word in this literal
1641
Pseudoprophets will populate the later part of of sense, it seems, Josephus defends Moses from such an
Josephus’ biblical paraphrase (Ant. 8.236, 241-42, 318, image (Apion 2.145, 161; cf. Ant. 2.320). He mainly uses
402, 406, 409; 9.133-37; 10.66, 104, 111), but in War the word, however, in a well-established metaphorical
the term appears only once again (6.285), in a symmetri- sense, for those who used clever speech to deceive the
cally parallel location: a certain charlatan and many oth- masses. Thus, Justus of Tiberias was, he says, able to
ers like him deceived the populace and cost the lives of make the worse case appear better through this verbal
some 6,000 with their false promises of imminent divine wizardry and deceit (γοητείᾳ καὶ ἀπάτῃ, Life 40). In a
deliverance. (Josephus claims that these “prophets” were similar way, Plato often accuses the sophists of being
cynically sponsored by the tyrants, to slow the tide of “enchanters” (Soph. 234c, 235a, 241b; Euthyd. 288b;
desertion from a hopeless cause.) Pol. 291c, 303c; Gorg. 483e). The Athenian orators and
What Josephus’ Roman and Greek audiences would later authors use the word in the same way, and it is
have understood by this term (ψευδοπροφήτης)—or often paired with other terms for deceit and trickery,
“prophet” in the next sentence—is not clear. The com- especially ἀπάτη, πλάνη, and cognates—as here [“those
pound noun has no attestation in classical sources, who had been tricked,” also 2.259]: Demosthenes, Cor.
though it appears regularly in LXX Jeremiah (6:13; 33:7, 276; Polybius 4.20.5; esp. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.25.4;
8, 11, 16; 35:1; 36:1, 8; also Zech 13:2—often where Is. 4; Thuc. 6-7; Strabo 7.3.11. Among Josephus’ con-
the Hebrew has simply “prophets” [‫ ]נביאים‬in a pejo- temporaries, whereas Plutarch often uses the word in
rative context) and in early Christian texts (e.g., Mark its literal sense (in contexts of prophecy and magic),
13:22; Matt 7:15; 24:11; Acts 13:6; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Dio Chrysostom favors the political application: his
Rev 16:13; Ignatius, Philad. 5). In Greco-Roman usage, imaginative Alexander observes that Philip II must often
a “prophet” is normally one who maintains and inter- speak against the orator Demosthenes, “an extremely
prets the oracles at certain sanctuaries; at Delphi was forceful orator and enchanter” (µάλα δεινῷ ῥήτορι καὶ
the famous prophetess, the Pythia. This is not Josephus’ γόητι; Or. 2.19; cf. 32.11, 39 [paired with “sophist”],
meaning in connection with the Egyptian, evidently. His 77/78.34).
term does, however, map closely to the semantic range Josephus’ language here gathers special force from
of ψευδόµαντις, which is amply attested in classical the particular context: these men generated a following
texts—though absent from Josephus (e.g., Euripides, by pretending to be prophets, to speak for God. Philo
Orest. 1667; Sophocles, Oed. col. 1097; Dionysius, Ant. reinterprets Deut 13:1-6 to say that anyone who claims to
rom. 3.71.2; Lucian, Dial. mort. 12.5; Dial. deor. 18.2; be a prophet, but uses ostensibly inspired speech to lead
Alexander; Artemidorus, 2.69); ψευδοµάντεις (“false/ his followers to worship other Gods, “is an enchanter,
fake seers”) can also appear in tandem with γόητες or but not a prophet, because he fabricated false pronounce-
“enchanters, wizards” (Plutarch, Cic. 17.5; Pyth. or. ments and oracles” (Spec. 1.315). Josephus will, how-
[Mor.] 407c), as do Josephus’ false prophets (here and ever, use the same label for military faction-leaders and
War 2.261; cf. Ant. 20.97). fighters (War 2.565; 4.85; 5.317).
1643
Perhaps Josephus chooses ψευδοπροφήτης because We move back to the countryside, after the shift to
(a) for him, ψευδόµαντις would be redundant, given that the city, the sicarii, and the visionaries claiming inspira-
book two 213

ing attracted to himself a prophet’s trust,1644 assembled around 30,0001645 of those who
had been tricked:1646 262 he led them around, out from the desert1647 up to the mountain
called “of Olives.”1648 From there he was [in a position] to enter Hierosolyma forcibly1649
and, after overcoming the Roman garrison1650 and the populace,1651 to exercise tyranny,1652
using those who had shared in the assault as his “spear-bearers.”1653 263 But Felix an-

tion (2.253, 254). By contrast, Ant. 20.169 reports that first camp on Scopus, part of the same ridge (5.67-68,
“someone” came from Egypt to Jerusalem, where he 106-8; cf. Cestius Gallus’ force at 2.542).
1649
stirred up the masses, claiming to be a prophet. See previous note. Although Jerusalem was usu-
1644
On trustworthy prophets, see Apion 1.37-38, 41; ally attacked from the N, as also by the Romans, the
Deut 18:15-22; Philo, Mos. 2.280. NE-E ridge from Scopus along the Mt. of Olives, sit-
1645
Ant. 20.169 says that the Egyptian advised the ting about 40 m. higher than Jerusalem’s hills, afforded
rabble to accompany him to the Mount of Olives; 20.171 potential attackers a clear view of activities in the city;
adds that when Felix’s troop fell upon the prophet’s fol- hence the legionary bases in those positions. It also
lowers they killed 400 and took 200 prisoners. This promised relatively direct access to the temple mount,
suggests a rather smaller following. Acts 21:38 gives though attacking forces would need first to emerge from
him 4,000 followers. Josephus’ numbers are notoriously the Kidron Valley. In the Six-Day War of 1967 Israeli
inconsistent and often inflated. See 2.227 and note to forces captured E Jerusalem by approaching from Sco-
“30,000” there. pus via the Mt. of Olives (i.e., from the enemy side).
1646 1650
Greek τῶν ἠπατηµένων, a phrase used again at See the note to “cohort” at 2.11, 224, and to
2.610. See the note to “trickery” at 2.106. “standards” at 2.169.
1647 1651
See the note to “desert” at 2.259. According to In this passage, tellingly, Josephus twice uses
the parallel (Ant. 20.169), the Egyptian led the masses one of his more honorific designations for the common
out from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives. Acts 21:38 people of the Judeans: ὁ δῆµος. Although it occurs 145
compounds the confusion by having him lead sicarii (cf. times in War (273 times in the corpus), he has used
War 2.254-55) into the desert (cf. War 2.259; Mason it sparingly in bk. 2 (2.3, 28, 42, 197), preferring the
2003c: 280-82). condescending τὸ πλῆθος, which has occurred dozens
1648
This is the first of 5 references in War to the hill of times already (of 918 occurrences in the corpus),
overlooking Jerusalem to the E (cf. 5.70: 6 stadia [about most recently at 2.260 of the mob misled by fake teach-
1.2 km.] from Jerusalem, separated by the Kidron Val- ers and killed as a result. Here he reserves that term
ley). The MT. of Olives (or Mt. of Anointing) is not a for the Egyptian’s mob. It cannot be coincidental that
single hill, but the olive tree- covered ridge extending his use of ὁ δῆµος goes along with his presentation of
from the “Hill of Evil Counsel” in the S to Mt. Scopus the populace as determinedly resistant to the Egyptian
(in Josephus ὁ Σκοπός; modern ‫הר הצופים‬, in the N.) and his 30,000 duped followers. “The populace” would
The Mt. of Olives is mentioned in 2 Sam 15:30, as part need to be defeated, the Egyptian realizes (i.e., he can-
of David’s escape route from the city. Josephus’ descrip- not win them over); indeed the narrator tells us that the
tions throughout War assume that his audience does not whole populace joined Felix’s forces in defending the
know the geography. city against this trouble-maker.
The “messianic” significance of the site in the 1st 1652
Tyranny is a major theme in War (see the note to
century CE was guaranteed by a passage in the prophet “tyrants” at 1.10): this is Josephus’ characteristic desig-
Zechariah (14:1-9), which promised that, following a nation of those who stirred up a popular following for,
terrible war and suffering, the Lord would deliver his he says, their own aggrandizement.
1653
people by standing on the Mt. of Olives and splitting These δορυφόροι could be understood more
it, creating a valley of escape to the E. Partly under the neutrally as “bodyguards” or as the “armed thugs,
influence of this prophetic tradition, the site was taken henchmen” of a tyrant—as here. Notwithstanding the
over by NT accounts of Jesus’ life (Mark 11:1; 13:3; etymology reflected in my translation, the word had
14:25 and parallels; Acts 1:8-12); his “triumphal entry,” an established usage for the intimidating guards that a
though reportedly peaceful in intention, was strikingly king and especially a tyrant gathered around himself.
similar in some respects with the Egyptian’s planned For the more neutral usage: Augustus presented Herod
assault. Cf. also T. Naph. 5.1; 4 Bar. 9.20. This story with 400 Gauls, formerly in Cleopatra’s service, as a
of the Egyptian Prophet may be a kind of ironic fore- spear-carrying bodyguard (War 1.397, 664, 672). In the
shadow, since the Mt. of Olives will become the base of Roman context, the term was sometimes used of the
the famed Legio X Fretensis as they prepare to capture Praetorian Guard (Plutarch, Galb. 13); it overlaps exten-
the city (5.70, 135, 504; 6.157); the other 3 legions will sively with Latin satellites. But the conjunction with
214 book two

ticipated* his attack, having gone out to meet him with Roman heavy infantry, and all
the populace1654 took part in the defense, so that after the engagement1655 had occurred,
whereas the Egyptian fled1656 with a few men, most of those with him being destroyed1657
or taken alive,1658 the rest of the mob1659 escaped notice, each having been scattered to
his own place.
(13.6) 264 And even when these [parts] had been put in order, just as in a body that
is diseased a different part again was becoming inflamed.1660 For the enchanters1661 and
bandit-types1662 got together1663 and were inciting many to rebellion1664 and cajoling1665 them

tyranny is common: Isocrates, Hel. enc. 37; Plato, Resp. becomes diseased it cannot repair itself, but requires
575b, 587c; Polybius 21.32c.4; Diodorus 9.4.2; 11.86.4; outside (i.e., Roman) medicine. MS P omits the explicit
17.50.3; 17.50.4; 4 Macc 6.1, 23; 8.13; 11.27; Plutarch, reference to the body, but the others have it. The verb
Pelop. 6.2; 26.4; Sert. 5.7; 14.3; Dion 14.3. According to is rarely attested before Josephus; it appears chiefly in
Diogenes Laertius (1.98), Ephorus and Aristotle claimed the Hippocratic corpus and medical writers from the
that Periander of Corinth (ca. 600 BCE) “was the first to 2nd cent. CE. The metaphorical use for political inflam-
have spear-bearers—and he transformed his office into mation is Platonic (elaborated in detail at Tim. 84-87b;
a tyranny and would not allow anyone who wanted to Resp. 372e; Leg. 691e; cf. Polybius 3; Plutarch, Lyc.
live in his city.” Especially telling for the context here is 5.6; Num. 8.1; Mor. [Fort. rom.] 321c). From his time
2.275: each of the wretches made himself a chief bandit onward, it appears relatively often in this metaphorical-
or tyrant, and provided himself with spear-bearers to political sense.
1661
plunder the moderates. It is conceivable that Josephus See the note at 2.261.
1662
also intends a sharp allusion: Nero, the greatest Roman See the note to “bandit-style” at 2.65. Josephus
tyrant of the period in Josephus’ description (2.250-51), almost always uses this word either adjectivally or as
reportedly had a freedman named Doryphorus, whom a neuter singular substantive with article (1.11; 3.450;
he compelled to marry him as the princeps’ “husband” 4.406; Life 21), but here and at 4.402, possibly at 2.417,
(Suetonius, Nero 29; Tacitus, Ann. 14.65). Elsewhere in it is a masculine plural substantive.
1663
Josephus, see 2.275, 434, 564, 645 [of Josephus himself, With the coming together of these groups Jose-
but modest]; 4.392; 5.531, 439. phus appears to be describing the union of the two
1654
See the note to this word in the previous sec- kinds of trouble-maker he has just distinguished: mili-
tion. tant “bandits” (2.253-54) and charismatic visionaries, the
1655
See the note at 2.232. latter having cleaner hands for their non-involvement in
1656
Ant. 20.172 says that the Egyptian fled from the violence (2.258). If so, it seems odd that the “enchant-
fight and became invisible. ers” now proceed to join fully in the guerrillas’ violent
1657
See the note at 2.11. activities (below). To be sure, Josephus has indicated
1658
Again, Ant. 20.171 counts 400 killed and 200 pris- that the purer-hands group also really desired revolu-
oners; if these were “most” of the Egyptian’s following, tion (2.259) and has implied that the Egyptian enchanter
then the 30,000 mentioned here is a wild exaggeration was planning to use violence (2.262). Then again, the
(as seems inherently probable given the likely population parallel (Ant. 20.172), omitting most of this paragraph,
of ancient Jerusalem—no more than about 200,000). more logically says that the bandits (with the collapse
1659
See the note to “populace” at 2.262. of the Egyptian’s effort) once again began inciting
1660
The verb φλεγµαίνω occurs only 4 times in Jose- the populace to war against the Romans, and burning
phus, all in War . In the previous occurrence (1.507) the and pillaging the villages of those who did not com-
same general point is made: Archelaus compares human ply.
bodies and states, with their festering parts—calling for a One must ask whether the oddity here in War is better
mild cure if possible; the final occurrence (4.406) makes explained by a complex historical reality that Josephus
roughly the same comparison, and the third attributes the attempts to describe accurately, or by his desire to sys-
inflammation to hot-headed Judean youths in Caesarea. tematize with simple categories and thereby to continue
The image of the body politic subject to disease in its raising the rhetorical stakes in the narrative (from 2.253):
various parts has a rich history in Greek and Roman bandits in the countryside; then knife-wielding assassins
political discussion (Plato, Resp. 372e; Livy 2.32; see in the city who killed daily; worse than this, hourly fear
the note to “diseased” at War 1.4). Particularly relevant of murder; just as bad, charismatic visionaries; worse yet,
is Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 824a: the diseased parts of a the Egyptian enchanter; still worse, bandits and enchant-
body must be repaired by the strong ones; if the whole ers joining hands!
book two 215

toward “freedom,”1666 threatening death to those who submitted to the Roman imperium1667
and saying that they would remove by force those “who willingly chose slavery.”1668 265
Dividing themselves by companies1669 into the countryside, they both plundered the homes
of the powerful1670—and did away with them—and set the villages ablaze,1671 so that all
Judea was being filled up with their madness.1672 And this war was being fanned1673 every
day.1674
(13.7) 2661675 But a different kind of disturbance1676 involving Caesarea1677 compounded Civil strife in
Caesarea. Ant.
20.173

1664
The same phrase (εἰς ἀπόστασιν ἐνάγω) is War Josephus tends to use it as a pejorative catch-all
used of Judas the Galilean at 2.118. MSS PAM have term for the behavior of all those who reject élite lead-
ἀποστασία rather than ἀπόστασις, which is possible, ership and seek political change, especially in revolt
since these words have such similar meanings in Jose- against Rome. Launched as a term of political diagnosis
phus (cf. 7.82, 164), though ἀπόστασις is much more by Thucydides (1.82.4; 7.67.14) and the Athenian orators
common (62 occurrences in contrast to 3). They also (Demosthenes, Cor. 249; cf. Hyperides, Dem. frag. 3.7;
have the simple verb ἄγω (“lead” rather than “incite, Dinarchus, Dem. 82, 104—both accusing Demosthenes
induce”). Latin reads afflictionem inducebant, which is of the ailment), and developed in this sense by Poly-
puzzling if translating the same Greek noun, except that bius (1.70.5, 82.1; 2.35.2, 47.4; 9.39.1; 13.4.4; 16.32.1;
it seems to confirm the form of the verb here. 21.34.12; 30.3.2; 33.10.6), the term remained serviceable
1665
Or “poking, prodding.” Here is a striking instance for the Hellenistic historians (11 times each in Diony-
of Josephus’ fashionable diction. The verb παρακροτέω sius and Diodorus; cf. 6 times in Posidonius’ fragments).
is attested in literature before his time only in Dionysius Josephus exploits it significantly more than any of his
(Ant. rom. 7.46.5). Josephus uses it a remarkable 14 times, extant predecessors or contemporaries.
1673
however: 13 in the 6 books of War (1.380, 617; 3.153, This “fanning” picks up, with a deft turn to meta-
239, 484; 4.19, 159, 193, 601; 5.75, 306; 6.285)—quali- phor, the literal burning of the villages just mentioned. It
fying it as a distinctive term of this work. After Josephus will come up again at 2.293, 343, when Florus energeti-
it becomes visible, but not popular (Lucian, Anach. 1; cally fans the flames of war (ἐκριπίζω τὸν πόλεµον);
Philostratus, Gymn. 46). The novelty lies in the prefix, the imagery anticipates the final conflagration involving
for the root κροτέω (strike, knock, clap, applaud, pat) the temple. It is not clear whether Josephus used (the
is amply attested, as is the form συγκροτέω (“knock passive imperfect of) ῥιπίζω, as the usually superior
together”)—a favorite of Philo’s (41 times), which Jose- MSS PAML indicate (cf. Latin gravius augebatur), or
phus also has 17 times, 8 in War . Prefixed as here, the ἀναρριπίζω (possibly “rekindled” or simply an intensi-
verb in Josephus usually has the metaphorical sense of fied “fanned”) as MS C has it—surprisingly preferred in
encouragement or prodding onward. this case by Niese, LCL, M-B, Vitucci, Pelletier. Both
1666
See the note to “freedom,” a bedrock theme in words are exotic, the simple form appearing in Aristo-
War , at 2.259. phanes (Ran. 360; Eccl. 842), a fragment of Aristotle,
1667
See the note to this phrase at 1.3. Compare again and hardly again before Strabo (15.3.14), the NT (James
Judas the Galilean at 2.118: he abuses as cowards those 1:6), and Philo (Jos. 124; Aet. mund. 125). It would be
who put up with rendering tribute to Rome and who the only occurrence in Josephus, but that is also true of
tolerate mortal masters besides God. the compound form. Nevertheless, the compound form
1668
See the notes to “slavery” at 2.209 (in the context has much fuller attestation generally (in addition to scat-
of the Roman Senate’s reluctance to endorse Claudius) tered classical occurrences: 5 times in Dionysius, 8 in
and to “freedom” at 2.259. Philo, 12 in Plutarch).
1669 1674
See the note to “century” at 2.61. See the note to this phrase at 2.256.
1670 1675
See the note at 2.239. The date of the following important episode is
1671
Villages were recently set ablaze by Eleazar son uncertain, though Josephus implies that it came near the
of Deineus’ bandits (2.235): the repetition contributes to end of Felix’s tenure, and thus perhaps between 57 and
the sense of escalating chaos. 59/60 CE; see the range of opinions canvassed in Levine
1672
This is the first occurrence of an important term 1974: 382 n. 6.
1676
in War (ἀπόνοια), which occurs 24 times from here to This phrase (Ἑτέρα δὲ ταραχὴ) recalls the intro-
the end of bk. 7 (“The madness of the sicarii, just like a duction to the second of the Pilate episodes (2.175)
disease, also struck the cities around Cyrene”: 7.437), 42 and so contributes to the sense of steadily mounting
times in Josephus’ corpus. Meaning literally “departure unrest that characterizes bk. 2. Niese (followed by LCL,
from one’s [normal] mind,” it can have many nuances, M-B, Pelletier) makes this phrase the beginning of a
from “recklessness” to “desperation” to “madness.” In new sentence and section, no doubt because the “and”
216 book two

Figure 1 Map of Caesarea. Courtesy of Joseph Patrich, from "Herodian Caesarea: the Urban Space,"
pp. 93-130 in N. Kokkinos, ed., The World of the Herods (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2007).
book two 217

[matters],*1678 when the Judeans who had been mixed in [with the population]1679 formed
a faction1680 against the Syrians there.1681 For whereas the former reckoned the city to be
theirs,1682 saying that its founder1683 had been a Judean (this was Herod the king),1684 the

at its beginning seems to make the war’s being fanned ness that Josephus promises in the prologue (1.9). Again
into flame (ἀνερριπίζετο) a continuation of the con- in 2.267-68 he presents the problem as arising from the
sequences of the previous actions. Although that con- Greeks’ determination not to be shown up by the stron-
nection is clear, and I have followed it here, the µέν ger and wealthier Judeans, some of whom could not be
. . . δέ construction from the previous clause links the restrained from pursuing the conflict. The parallel (Ant.
2 paragraphs closely. 20.173-78) makes the same claim emphatically: after
1677
Coastal Caesarea, already much discussed in the the prefects calmed initial outbreaks, the Judeans—
War (see notes at 2.16 and 2.171-72.). The headquarters emboldened by their wealth—began abusing the Syr-
of the Roman governor and base of his auxiliary forces, ians, expecting to start trouble (20.175-76); after Felix
it will remain a flashpoint for growing tensions, which ordered the Judeans to desist, and they refused, he sent in
Josephus will identify as a primary cause of the revolt his soldiers, who killed and imprisoned many (20.177).
against Rome (2.284-92, 457). At this, the Judean leaders begged Felix to give them a
1678
This is the same verb (συνίστηµι) as in 2.258. chance for repentance (µετάνοια), which he obliged.
Although in the middle rather than active voice, in con- In his speech at Masada, Eleazar ben Ya‘ir will cite a
text it seems to have the same function of adding to long-standing quarrel between Judeans and Caesareans
existing problems. If taken absolutely, it would mean that culminated in the massacre of 66 CE (7.362-63; cf.
that this disturbance “came together” (i.e., “arose, took 2.457).
1681
shape, emerged”). Josephus often describes the non-Judeans of Cae-
1679
On the ethnic history of Caesarea, see Levine sarea as Syrians (also Ant. 20.173, 183-84; Life 52-53,
1975a: 5-25; Kasher 1990: passim; Kloppenborg 2000; 59), using a broad term for the peoples of the region.
Murray 2000; and Pummer 2000. Josephus’ language There is support for this in his observation at 1.156-57:
here, that the Judeans were mixed in, fits with his con- Strato’s Tower (and proleptically Caesarea) is included
sistent portrayal of Caesarea as a Greek city in which a among the cities designated part of the province of Syria
substantial Judean population had grown (see the follow- by Pompey. The Syrians’ appeal to their city’s Greek—
ing notes). There is evidence of a Judean presence even not Judean—identity in this story is evidently a cultural
in the earlier settlement of Strato’s Tower, especially after claim, and Josephus accordingly calls them “Greeks” a
the Hasmonean Alexander Janneus took it in 103 BCE number of times (2.265, 267-68, 284-85). In the parallel
(Ant. 13.334-335), but the Judean community appears to account, which configures the issue as one of primacy
have become negligible again after Pompey established based on greater antiquity, he calls the non-Judeans
the city with a Greek charter (1.156; cf. Levine 1975a: “Syrians” throughout (Ant. 20.173-84).
1682
1-10; Murray 2000: 128-30; Kloppenborg 2000: 231-37; Greek οἱ µὲν γὰρ ἠξίουν σφετέραν εἶναι τὴν
note the exaggerated claim of the Syrians in Ant. 20.173). πόλιν. This is a remarkable claim: the Judeans are not
We do not know how many Judeans were settled in the demanding equality, or protection from harassment,
Caesarea of Herod and the Roman governors: Josephus but, from their position of superior wealth and strength,
will soon claim that some 20,000 were slaughtered in an asserting their intention to reconfigure the city’s identity
hour, while the rest fled and were captured, leaving no (cf. 2.284) such that it would be governed by Judean
remainder (2.457). The city’s theater held 3,500 to 4,000, rather than Greek traditions, laws, and calendar—like
and the multi-function stadium, which should have been Jerusalem. Given that Herod founded Caearea as a Greek
able to seat a large segment of the population, accom- city and counterweight to Judean Jerusalem (cf. Beebe
modated 7-13,000 (see the note to “stadium” at 2.172). 1983), indeed as the main center in the region for the
Kloppenborg (2000: 231-37) plausibly argues for a total cult of Rome and Augustus (quite possibly the source
population of 15-18,000 within the city walls, 26,000 of profound aggravation to its Judeans), this would have
including those outside, of which the Judeans constituted meant a radical change indeed, entailing inter alia the
a minority. removal of the city’s distinctive architecture, harbor stat-
1680
Or “started a quarrel (stasis) with” (τῶν ἀνα- ues, massive temple to Augustus, sacrifices, entertain-
µε µιγµέ νων Ἰουδαίων πρὸς τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ Σύρους ment facilities, and civic offices. Levine observes (1974:
στασιασάντων). This formulation and the following 387): “Thus we find a Jewish community daring to seek
story put the onus for stasis-creation on the Judeans of control of a Greco-Roman city, an attempt without paral-
Caesarea—an impressive example of the even-handed- lel in antiquity.”
218 book two

others, though they conceded that the colonizer1685 was a Judean, nevertheless insisted that
the city was indeed one of Greeks,1686 for in dedicating it1687 to Judeans he would not have

According to War, when this Judean initiative cre- µετάνοιαν, 20.178). In Antiquities, that marks the end
ates instability and violence, Felix will refer the matter of the Judeans’ quest for primacy in Caesarea. There is
to Nero (2.270), who eventually replies by reaffirming the sequel mentioned above, however, not found in War :
the city’s Syrian-Greek character (2.284). The narrative by means of a bribe, a Syrian-Caesarean delegation to
function is clear, if slightly awkward in its execution: the Rome prevails upon Nero’s secretary ab epistulis Grae-
audience must wait several paragraphs, until the year of cis and former paedagogus, Beryllus (cf. Griffin 1984:
the war’s outbreak in 66 CE (2.284), to hear Nero’s deci- 32, 46, 55), to secure from the princeps a cancellation
sion. Josephus does not make that decision a direct cause (ἀκυρόω) of existing Judean equality (Ant. 20.183-84).
of the war, but uses it as a reason to return the story Since the Judeans had recently aimed at control of the
to Caesarea, now under Gessius Florus as governor, to city, this humiliating revocation of their current political
report another Caesarean episode: the continuing efforts standing inflamed them all the more, and this led to war
of the Judeans to dominate the city (by land purchase), (20.183-84). For scholarly analyses, which do not gen-
which were a primary cause of the war. This conflict erally consider the fundamental differences between the
led to serious violence and tragically disproportionate narratives, see Levine 1974; 1975a; Kasher 1977; 1990;
consequences, drawing in the governor, and his efforts Kloppenborg 2000; Sly 2000.
1683
to divert attention from his misdeeds there stoked the Greek κτίστης. See the note to “colonizer” below
flames of war (2.285). in the same section.
1684
Ant. 20.173 frames the story differently. Josephus Cf. 1.408-16, for Herod’s establishment of Cae-
begins by citing a problem concerning equal civic sarea. More recently, Herod’s grandson Agrippa I had
rights in Caesarea: ἰσοπολιτεία—a term that he uses also ruled the city as part of his territory (41-44 CE),
only in that story. That topic sentence anticipates the and had died there—to the unseemly joy of the gentile
outcome of a second Caesarea-related episode (the first inhabitants (War 2.219; Ant. 19.343-52).
1685
does not concern isopoliteia). Namely: after the arrival Greek οἰκιστής; see the note to “founder” above.
of the procurator Festus (20.182), the Greco-Syrians The switch in terminology may be simply for the sake
will maneuver, apparently as a result of humiliations of variatio, since the two words overlap considerably in
experienced in the present incident, to have the existing meaning. But Josephus appears to be making a subtler
Judean ἰσοπολιτεία in Caesarea annulled (παρὰ τοῦ point, and this would be especially true if he already has
Νέρωνος αὐτοῖς ἐπιστολὴν ἀκυροῦσαν τὴν Ἰουδαίων in mind the fuller version that will appear in the paral-
πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἰσοπολιτείαν; 20.183). That decision by lel (Ant. 20.173-78). There the Judeans make a simi-
Nero will be a major cause of the war: their loss of civic lar claim to primacy because its founder was a Judean,
standing will prompt the Judeans of Caesarea to ever whereas the Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea point out
greater aggression against their neighbors (20.184): they that before Herod established Caesarea the site was the
“prosecuted their civil strife against the Syrians until non-Judean Strato’s Tower (20.173)—and so primacy
they [the Judeans] ignited the war” (πυθόµενοι γὰρ οἱ goes to them. Given that War has also repeatedly men-
κατὰ τὴν Καισάρειαν Ἰουδαῖοι τὰ γραφέντα τῆς πρὸς tioned and described Herod’s refoundation of the much
τοὺς Σύρους στάσεως µᾶλλον εἴχοντο µέχρι δὴ τὸν older Strato’s Tower as Caesarea (1.77-80, 156, 396,
πόλεµον ἐξῆψαν). esp. 408-16), it seems that the difference of label is sig-
The story he tells immediately after that topic sentence nificant: the gentiles recognize Herod as the one who
(Ant. 20.173) has nothing to do with equal rights; like resettled the city and established its present condition,
this account in War , it concerns a Judean bid for control but not as its original founder. NB: at 7.376 God will
or primacy (20.173: πρωτεύειν), which leads to violence. be designated the οἰκιστής of Jerusalem, and Josephus
From their position of greater wealth, he claims, the has emphasized that the city had a much older Canaanite
Judeans held the poorer Syrian population in contempt foundation (πρῶτος κτίσας; 6.438). On the other hand,
and kept reviling them (τῷ πλούτῳ θαρροῦντες καὶ at 1.414 Josephus has spoken of Caesarea itself as a
διὰ τοῦτο καταφρονοῦντες τῶν Σύρων ἐβλασφήµουν foundation (τὴν τιµὴν τοῦ κτίσµατος Καισάρειαν).
1686
εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐρεθίσειν προσδοκῶντες, 20.175). When See the notes to “Syrians there” and “theirs” in
this behavior provoked violence, Felix intervened with 2.266.
1687
troops to stop the Judean instigators (20.177). Judean Greek ἀνατίθηµι. At 1.415 Josephus has already
leaders admitted their error, begging for an opportunity stated that Herod dedicated (same verb) Caesarea to the
to change course, which the procurator granted them province (ἀνέθηκεν δὲ τῇ µὲν ἐπαρχίᾳ), which must
(20.178: καὶ φείσασθαι τὸ λοιπὸν αὐτῶν δοῦναί τε mean Syria.
book two 219

set up1688 statues and shrines.1689 267 Because of these [matters] both sides kept contend-
ing:1690 their rivalry progressed to weapons,1691 and every day1692 the bolder ones1693 from
both sides were plunging ahead1694 into battle. For the senior1695 Judeans were not able to
restrain their own insurgents,1696 and to the Greeks it seemed a disgrace to be in a weaker
position than the Judeans.1697 268 These [the Judeans] had the advantage in wealth1698 and

1688 1694
See the note to this rare verb (ἐγκαθιδρύω), which This rare and vivid verb (προπηδάω), connoting
Josephus uses 4 times in War (3 in bk. 2), at 2.185. an incautious or unusually courageous or desperate leap,
1689
In Ant. 20.173, by contrast, the Syrians appeal to is characteristic language in War (21 of its 22 occur-
the ancient foundation of Strato’s Tower as proof of the rences in Josephus). See the note at 2.47.
1695
city’s non-Judean character. If that is hinted at in the dis- This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the
tiction between κτίστης and οἰκιστής here (see the note substantive phrase, οἱ γεραιοί, and the adjective appears
to “colonizer” here), then it would seem again that Jose- elsewhere only at 4.151; Ant. 18.72. Significantly, this
phus had something like the later account in view as he term for older men is also absent from Josephus’ model
composed War , but freely chose to emphasize different Polybius and it hardly occurs in Thucydides (6.18.6),
arguments in the 2 works. The argument here is decisive, whereas οἱ πρεσβύτεροι (“the elders”) is standard in
for in spite of Herod’s Judean identity, the archaeology of all 3 authors.
1696
Caesarea amply confirms that the king built Caesarea as Greek στασιασταί, a key term in War; see the
a Greco-Roman city. The statues and temples mentioned note at 1.10. Again (see the note to “spirited ones” in
here were not incidental to the city’s image, but defined this section), it is clear from the inability of the seniors
it (1.413-16): “At the mouth [of the harbor] colossal to restrain them that the brash agitators tend to be young.
statues were supported by columns, three on each side. Cf. 2.290 below (also concerning Caesarea): “but the
. . . On a mound right opposite the mouth [of the har- factious element (τὸ στασιῶδες), which by virtue of its
bor] was Caesar’s temple, remarkable for its beauty and youth had become inflamed, was burning up for bat-
size. In it was a colossal statue of Caesar, not inferior tle.”
1697
to the Olympian Zeus, after which it was modeled, and This is one of Josephus’ characteristic observa-
[a statue] of Rome, matching that of Hera at Argos.” Cf. tions on human nature (cf. 1.31), rather than any special
Ant. 15.268-76. The massive Herodian platform (90 m by indictment of the Greeks.
1698
100 m [295 x 330 ft]) for the central temple described by This relative wealth has an important function
Josephus, dedicated to Rome (or Livia?) and Augustus, in the later story: the Judeans will attempt to buy land
was identified in 1995 and systematically excavated from next to their synagogue at many times its value (2.285);
1997; cf. Holum 1999; Bernett 2007: 102-21. when that fails, they will unsuccessfully bribe the gover-
1690
Josephus used this verb (ἀµφισβητέω) often for nor with a massive sum to halt construction on the land
the rivalry among Herod’s sons for succession (2.20, 26; (2.287). Josephus will specifically mention a leading
cf. Ant. 17.318). Judean with lucrative public contracts, named Ioannes
1691
Josephus more often uses the phrase εἰς (or ἐπὶ) (2.287). Feldman (1993: 119) uses the present passage in
ὅπλα χωρεῖν (2.517; 4.71; Ant. 5.150; 17.242; 20.3; Life support of his larger argument about the enviable pros-
31, 391); here the verb is προέρχοµαι. In pre-industrial perity of many Judean communities around the ancient
societies, weapons (ὅπλα) could be almost anything, Mediterranean, against the “lachrymose” tradition of
from purpose-built, tempered, or sharpened implements Jewish historiography. He compares (119-20) the notice
to rocks and sticks. Ant. 20.176 has the 2 sides throwing in Ant. 20.177, that Felix allowed his soldiers to plunder
stones at each other, causing serious injury. Judeans’ homes, some of which contained vast sums
1692
See the note to this phrase at 2.256. of money. This is also suggested in 2.270 below (some
1693
Or “the more spirited, brasher ones” (οἱ Judeans’ homes are plundered by Felix’s soldiers in
θρασύτεροι). Boldness is a trait that Josephus, in Aristo- retaliation for their failure to desist). Although Feldman
telian and Polybian fashion (cf. Eckstein 1995: 145), typ- may well be right (in historical terms) that such wealth
ically associates with the young. Contrast the “seniors” would have created jealousy, Josephus’ point here (and
of the next sentence, and see the note to “youths” at explicitly at Ant. 20.175) seems to be that it emboldened
2.225. Bold youth are particularly thick on the ground in the Judeans to claim the city as theirs (and that this is
War 2, Ant. 20, and Life—in the build-up to war (2.238, mainly what provoked the hostile reaction). Kloppenborg
303, 320, 409, 478; Ant. 20.57, 108, 180, 199, 206, 213; (2000: 239) argues, from late rabbinic passages requiring
Life 126, 147, 179, 185, 220; cf. Ant. 4.103). See the note tithes on produce sold in Caesarea (y. Dem. 2.1.22c),
to “bolder ones” at 2.238. that much of this produce must have come from Judea,
220 book two

strength1699 of [their] bodies,1700 the Greek [side] in protection by the soldiers—for the
bulk of the military force there1701 had been enlisted by the Romans from Syria1702 and,
just like relatives,1703 they were ready for acts of assistance.1704
269 It certainly was a concern of the prefects1705 to check the disturbance:1706 constantly

1701
with the result that Judean merchants in the city had the See the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52. The Roman
economic advantage of their large hinterland (but cf. p. governors had taken over from King Herod, and devel-
236, where he seems to say that the Judeans’ wealth was oped, an auxiliary force of 3,000 or more men (5 infantry
“probably acquired” earlier than the Herodian period). and one cavalry cohort). The strong connections with the
Although the reminiscences of the Jerusalem Talmud people of Caesarea and Sebaste, from whom the auxilia-
come centuries later, Josephus’ claim about wealthy ries were mainly drawn, came to a head with the death of
Judeans in this major port city seems inherently plau- the Judean King Agrippa I in 44 CE, when their raucous
sible, with the Judean hinterland and Jezreel (Esdraelon) celebrations almost convinced Claudius to move them
Plain nearby; we simply lack outside evidence to test or abroad and replace them with Roman legionaries (Ant.
clarify the claim. 19.364-66).
1699 1702
Cf. Or. sib. 2.125: “Do not exult in wisdom, or This is apparently meant in the sense that non-
in strength, or in wealth!”—the latter two Greek terms Judean territory is associated with the larger province
matching Josephus’ language here. of Syria (even though Caesarea had become the seat of
1700
“Strength of body” (ἀλκὴ σώµατος) is charac- the Judean governor). The parallel (Ant. 20.176) reminds
teristic of War’s lexicon: 2.376, 476, 580; 4.503; 6.55, the audience of Josephus’ repeated indications that these
81, 331; 7.232; note also 2.60; Ant. 6.21; 17.278. At soldiers were drawn from Caesarea and Sebaste (cf. pre-
2.580 Josephus will claim that strength of body (and vious note and Ant. 19.365; 20.122).
1703
exaltation of soul) have allowed the Romans to master I.e., just like the relatives they were, since the
most of the inhabited earth. Though attested, this collo- auxiliary cohorts recruited principally from Caesarea and
cation is not common before Josephus: Euripides (Rhes. Sebaste (see previous and following notes).
1704
382); Diodorus (2.39.2; 4.26.3; 17.100.5; 18.70.3), and See the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52; also the
Philo (Ebr. 174; Mos. 1.259; Virt. 46). The plural here notes to “cohort” at 2.224 and “Sebastene” at 2.236.
(σωµάτων ἀλκή) could be construed either as a claim of The ongoing tendency of the auxiliary cohorts under the
greater physical vigor among the Judeans—“the strength Judean governor’s command to side with the non-Judean
of [their individual] bodies,” as in the similar construc- population, in War personified in the egregious tribune
tions at 2.376; 6.331; Ant. 6.21—or in the sense that the Celer (2.244-46), is a significant factor in rising pre-
Judeans’ strength consisted in their numerical superior- war tensions according to Josephus (2.224, 229, 236).
ity: they had the advantage of “the strength that comes He will juxtapose the slaughter of Caesarea’s Judeans
from having many bodies.” The parallel account does (2.457) with the slaughter of the Roman-auxiliary gar-
not help because it mentions only greater wealth (Ant. rison in Jerusalem, asserting that Providence arranged
20.175). Although Levine (1974: 382-83; 1975a: 22) and it for the same day and hour. Even if he does not mean
Feldman (1993: 120) understand the issue as numerical, that the Caesareans immediately took revenge (for they
the translation here reflects the formulaic sense of simi- could not have learned of the event in Jerusalem at
lar phrases elsewhere in Josephus: the Judeans of Cae- the same hour), his strong literary connection between
sarea thus compare favorably to the Germans, renowned the episodes may be partly explained by this bond—
for the strength and size of their bodies (2.376: πλῆθος understood by his audience and felt by the Caesareans
ἀλκὴν µὲν γὰρ καὶ µεγέθη σωµάτων). Indeed, the physi- themselves—between the Caesareans and the auxiliary
cal strength on the Judean side is assumed in the later cohorts of Judea.
1705
story (2.286), where their youth undertake to prevent In Josephus’ narratives of the Roman period, Greek
construction by a Greek resident near the synagogue— ἔπαρχος (“commander”) is almost invariably singular
and can only be restrained by the governor’s military (War 2.450, 544; 3.310; 6.303, 305; Ant. 18.33; 19.363;
forces. 20.152, 193, 197; Life 33, 121), normally serving as the
Having a numerical advantage would mean enjoying standard equivalent of Latin praefctus in the many senses
a majority, whereas Josephus’ language (“mixed in” at of that position: cf. H. J. Mason 1974: 45, 138-39. In
2.266) and the massacre at 2.475 suggest that Judeans the few other cases of the plural (War 3.122; 5.48), the
were a minority, no matter how sucessful and wealthy, in term is clearly explained as “prefects of a cohort.” This
keeping with the generally Greek character of the city. passage and its parallel in Ant. 20.174 provide the only
book two 221

arresting the more belligerent, they would punish them with lashes and chains.1707 But the
sufferings of those who were arrested did not produce a turnaround1708 or anxiety in those
left behind; rather, they were provoked1709 even more toward civil strife.1710
270 On one occasion, when the Judeans had been victorious,1711 Felix went into the
marketplace1712 and directed them, with a threat, to withdraw.1713 When they did not com-
ply, he sent his soldiers against [them] and did away with*1714 a great number,1715 whose
property was then also plundered.1716 But since the civil strife1717 was continuing,1718 he
selected the notables1719 from both [groups] and sent them as emissaries to Nero1720 so
that they could negotiate concerning their rights.1721

1712
cases in which the plural is used without clarification. Presumably we are to understand that the fights
The LCL renders “magistrates” in both places, M-B “den between Judeans and Syrian-Greek Caesareans often
Behörden,” and Pelletier “les hommes qui détenaient occurred in the agora.
1713
l’autorité.” Given the context, however, involving the use Ant. 20.177: When he saw that this rivalry was
of force to keep order in Caesarea, there seems no reason taking the form of war, Felix personally appealed
to depart from Josephus’ consistent usage and render to the Judeans to stop (παύεσθαι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους
anything but “prefects”—whether those of the auxiliary παρεκάλει).
1714
cohorts in Caesarea or the governor himself and his asso- By using the 3rd-person singular verb, Josephus
ciates. At 2.291 below, the prefect of the cavalry wing is holds Felix to be the killer, even though his soldiers car-
made responsible for preventing civil strife. ried out the orders.
1706 1715
See the note to this characteristic Josephan term See the note to “large numbers” at 2.55.
1716
at the opening of this passage, 2.266. Curiously, much of The collocation οὐσίας διαρπάζω turns up once
what Josephus has already said in this account comes after or twice in several authors, but Josephus uses it more
his notice about the prefects’ nearly immediate efforts to often than others, especially in War 2 (2.270, 273, 464,
stop the violence in the parallel (Ant. 20.174). 624; otherwise only Ant. 10.112). Similarly Ant. 20.177:
1707
Greek µάστιξι καὶ δεσµοῖς. Not in the sense that when the Judeans refused, Felix armed his soldiers and
they were whipped with lashes and with chains: the sec- sent them in; they killed many but captured more. Felix
ond term indicates “that which binds [someone],” though allowed them to plunder certain homes of the Judeans in
English “bonds” (in this sense) and “fetters” are becom- the city that contained much wealth. Again, it is easier
ing archaic. Apparently, the men are confi ned chiefly to imagine that War truncates the version in Antiquities
for the purpose of occasional beatings; see the note to than that the detail of Antiquities expands War .
1717
“detainees” at 2.4. Again στάσις. See the note at 1.10.
1708 1718
Josephus uses a rare and colorful word (ἀνακοπή), At this point, the accounts here and in Antiquities
attested before his time only in Posidonius, Strabo, and crucially diverge; see the note to “theirs” at 2.266 above.
Philo, though his contemporary Plutarch uses it a num- Ant. 20.178 has the Judean leaders beg for pardon, and
ber of times. The word was often used of breakwaters repent of this dangerous campaign; Felix accepts their
or devices to “turn back” the tide (War 1.412; Ant. 5.20; plea, which ends the crisis.
1719
cf. Strabo 3.5.9). See the note at 2.193, to “powerful men” at 2.239,
1709
Repeated “provocations” indicated by the verb and the notes to 2.243.
1720
παροξύνω are part of Josephus’ narrative technique for See the note at 2.248.
1721
building tension. See the note at 2.8. Here is a clear example of Josephus’ A-B-A or
1710
Greek στάσις. See the note to this key term at “sandwich” technique in writing. He creates anticipa-
1.10. tion here, as we await the results of the hearing before
1711
This sentence provides further support for under- Nero, which will come only at 2.284—some 6 to 8
standing physical vigor at 2.268. The parallel (Ant. years after the delegates were sent, with the procurator-
20.176-77) describes mutual hostility at this point, with ships of Festus, Albinus, and Florus intervening. As the
the Syrians engaging in verbal slanders, which lead to preceding notes have indicated, this double delegation
stone-throwing and injuries on both sides, though again hardly squares with the pair mentioned in Ant. 20.182:
with the Judeans winning skirmishes (20.176). The trun- they leave Judea only after Festus’ arrival in 60 CE (or
cated form of this sentence (there seems to be something 58?), get more or less immediate hearings before Nero
missing between perpetuating civil strife and being vic- (the Judeans being thwarted by Pallas, who died in 62
torious) again suggests that Josephus is working with a [or 59/60]: 20.182), and return while Festus is still in
base narrative close to the version that survives in the office—by 62 CE (20.183-97). On several points War ’s
Antiquities. version is difficult to credit: the Judeans’ taking a claim
222 book two

Festus (14.1) 2711722 After Festus1723 succeeded Felix in the procuratorship,1724 he went out
procurator. Ant.
20.182
against that which was especially despoiling1725 the countryside:1726 he actually arrested
the majority of the bandits1727 and also destroyed1728 quite a few.1729
Albinus 272 But the one after Festus, Albinus,1730 did not govern affairs in the same manner,1731
procuator;
release of
prisoners. Ant.
20.197, 204

based on their superior wealth, for a refoundation of this CE (reasons in Schürer-Vermes, 1.465-66 n. 42), though
profoundly Greek city as Judean, to the flamboyant Hel- Kokkinos (1998: 385) offers reasons for revising this to
lenophile Nero; a ca. 7-year absence of the city’s “nota- the brief period from 58 to 59/60 CE. Most importantly,
bles,” both Syrian and Judean, from their normal duties; Josephus puts Agrippa II’s refoundation of Caesarea
the vague process and results (contrast Antiquities’ detail Philippi as Neronias under the next governor, Albinus
concerning Beryllus’ involvement in getting Judean citi- (Ant. 20.211), and Agrippa’s coinage dates the comple-
zenship overturned); and the seemingly artificial link tion of that event to 60/61, which (if Josephus is correct)
here with the later Caesarean episode (2.284-85). means that Festus must have died in office in 59 or 60.
1722
The following sentence, War’s only description His cognomen Festus is widely attested (617 occur-
of Festus, is remarkably spare, symmetrical, and posi- rences, so Kajanto 1982: 221) across social ranks.
tively disposed. The Antiquities parallel (20.182-97) is Although many scholars have assumed a connection of
much longer and more diffuse, connecting Festus with the name with festivals, Kajanto finds that surprisingly
other matters (sicarii and a controversy related to King few cognomina derive from festivals; he suspects that it
Agrippa II). There Josephus awkwardly, and with admit- means something more general: “merry, festive.”
1724
ted repetition (20.187; cf. 20.165-66?), reintroduces the See the note to “procurator” at 2.117. The parallel
sicarii as a species of bandit who used their special account calls him a prefect (ἔπαρχος: 20.193, 197).
1725
methods at festivals, though he also has them burning See the note to “spoiled” at 2.258. The gover-
the villages of their enemies just as the bandits do in the nors are still dealing with the bandits as they should;
same paragraph (20.185, 187). but see the same language in 2.278, 280 below, where
Whereas War here credits Festus for dealing effec- they change roles.
1726
tively with bandits, the parallel makes no such claim, Josephus has recently established the countryside,
but only that his forces eliminated a certain unnamed as distinct from the city, as the base of Judean banditry
“enchanter” who had persuaded people to follow him (2.253-54)—something his audience would likely assume
into the desert to await salvation (20.188; again, sus- anyway, since bandits were typically imagined as living
piciously repeating earlier language). Josephus adds a in caves and remote areas, away from concentrations of
story there about Agrippa II’s conspicuous addition to his security forces and in terrain that favored invisibility.
palace, which allowed him to observe the temple sacri- Ant. 20.185 reports more vividly that Judea was being
fices and so caused the outraged priestly élite to erect a devastated by bandits, who were burning down villages.
wall that blocked his view (and that of Roman soldiers Josephus then elaborates that the sicarii, who were ban-
observing from the roof of the western colonnade). This dits (he notes), would appear in the villages of their ene-
reportedly incensed Festus (20.193), who nevertheless mies and burn them down. This leaves open the question
indulged their request to send a delegation to Nero on whether there was a coherent and objectively identifiable
the matter (20.194). group known as sicarii (see note at 2.254).
1727
The NT Acts mentions nothing about bandits, but See the note to “chief bandit” at 2.56. This is a
features Festus in connection with the preliminary trials large compliment to Festus’ abilities, since the successful
of Paul in Caesarea. It includes the interesting notes that management of bandits was among a governor’s primary
Festus made a trip to Jerusalem only 3 days after arriv- responsibilities; see the note to “bandits” at 2.229.
1728
ing in his post (25:1), and after staying no more than 10 See the note at 2.11. The collocation “arrested
days he returned to Caesarea (25:6). There he hits upon and destroyed” (συλλαµβάνω, διαφθείρω) is also at War
using Paul’s case as a means of currying favor with his 4.327, 541; Ant. 12.390; 13.4, 228. Still more common
new subjects, by trying to move his trial to Jerusalem is the pair συλλαµβάνω + ἀναιρέω—“arrested and did
as they want (25:9). Shortly thereafter, Agrippa II and away with” (War 1.245, 577, 655; 2.457; 4.145, 330;
Berenice arrive in Caesarea to greet the new governor, 5.540; 6.380; Ant. 5.242; 8.210; 9.131; Life 25; Apion
and Paul’s case becomes the occasion for the beginning 2.266).
1729
of their working relationship (25.13-14). Josephus uses litotes—literally: “not a few.”
1723 1730
Porcius Festus (Ant. 20.182; Acts 24:47) is The narrative of Albinus’ term in Judea is much
unknown outside Josephus and the NT (Acts 24:27- fuller in Ant. 20.197-202, following immediately on the
26:32). His dates are usually given as 59 or 60 to 62 death of James the brother of Jesus (of Nazareth), which
book two 223

and there was no conceivable form of sordid behavior1732 that he neglected.1733 273 At any
rate, not only in connection with political affairs1734 was he stealing and plundering the
property of each person,1735 or burdening the entire nation with tax levies,1736 but he also
released on ransom, to their relatives, those who had been detained for banditry1737 by the

occurred in the interval between governors. Albinus’ with notes), who was infamous for having prosecuted the
term in office is usually given as 62-64 CE, with the nobility of Rome in order to seize their assets.
1735
execution of James occurring just before his arrival in The fuller account in Ant. 20 does not raise this
62 (Schürer-Vermes 1.468 and n. 50). Kokkinos (1998: charge and thus gives no content to this highly rhetorical,
385-86) redates his arrival to 59/60 (see note to “Festus” stock description of Albinus’ alleged behavior (ἔκλεπτεν
at 2.271), giving him a rather longer term (to 63/64). καὶ διήρπαζεν τὰς ἑκάστων οὐσίας; cf., e.g., Isocrates,
Albinus is often (though not on clear evidence) identi- Antid. 124; Panath. 141; Lysias, Phil. 14; Aristophanes,
fied with the Lucceius Albinus whom Nero would send Thesm. 205-6; Xenophon, Mem. 2.7.14; 4.2.15; Oec.
as procurator to Mauretania Caesariensis: after Nero’s 20.15; Cyr. 1.2.2; 5.1.13). Perhaps, then, this is another
death that Albinus favored Otho, until he made his own way of referring to the bribes he reportedly accepted (see
claim to (at least local) power, throwing off the title of the note at “banditry” in this section).
1736
procurator and adopting the name of Mauretanian roy- See the note to “tax levies” at 2.4: the language
alty, Iuba (see 2.115 above); he was killed in the civil of “lightening” and “deepening” or “burdening” them
war of 69 (Tacitus, Hist. 2.58-59). The cognomen, in any is characteristically Josephan. The content of Albinus’
case, well attested across social ranks (Kajanto 1982: special levies is puzzling, since he was not in a position
227), means “Whitey.” to set tribute (one standard meaning of the noun εἰσφορά
1731
Indeed, the following portrait, crucially with used here in plural). Josephus does not elaborate in the
respect to the freeing of bandits in return for bribes, fuller account of Ant. 20. This raises the possiblity that
makes War ’s Albinus a sort of “anti-governor,” who does the phrase has no real content: that Josephus’ vague
not merely fail in his mandate but ostentatiously inverts rhetoric here covers what were really personal bribes,
it. See the following notes. mentioned in both accounts. Albinus may have tried to
1732
Cognates of κακουργία (the noun here) appear raise levies for public works projects or the like, which
only 5 times in War (contrast 61 occurrences in his lat- could also cause massive opposition (cf. 2.175).
1737
ter writings, 5 in Life alone—a third shorter than War The portrait in Ant. 20 is completely different.
2). Of the 5 occurrences in War , 2 are here and at 2.277 There, the new procurator immediately sets about rid-
below—used of Albinus’ successor Gessius Florus. This ding the city of sicarii, destroying “many” of them: “he
illustrates Josephus’ tendency to use words in proximity introduced every technique and provision for bringing
and then drop them: he uses the same strong language peace to the land” (20.204). When some of sicarii kidnap
to characterize Judea’s final two governors before the the staff of the powerful chief priest Ananias and his son
revolt. Eleazar, however, Ananias pressures Albinus to capitu-
1733
This phrasing (οὐκ ἔστιν δὲ ἥντινα κακουργίας late to sicarii demands for the release of their detainees
ἰδέαν παρέλειπεν) recalls Josephus’ description of in return for those kidnapped (20.209-10). As a result,
Herod’s son Antipater’s attacks on his brother Alexan- the numbers of sicarii begin to swell again. Finally, when
der (1.495: οὐκ ἔστιν ἥντινα διαβολὴν παρέλιπεν) Albinus knows that his term is ending, he wants to leave
and anticipates the description of Albinus’ succes- a favorable legacy with the Judeans and so decides the
sor Florus at 2.277 (οὔτε ἁρπαγῆς τινα τρόπον οὔτε fate of all those waiting in detention: the serious crimi-
αἰκίας παρέλιπεν) and 306 (τρόπος τε ἁρπαγῆς οὐδεὶς nals he executes, while those detained “on minor and
παρελείπετο). Cf. similar constructions at 5.35; Ant. incidental charges” he frees for a fee—filling the land
1.17; 3.159; 14.1; 16.24, 64; 18.24; 19.293; Apion 1.5, with bandits, Josephus claims (20.215). That Josephus
213; 2.171. A brief notice later in War (6.305), however, was capable of presenting Albinus as such a normal-
indicates a more responsible side to Albinus’ tenure: he seeming governor later in War (see note to “neglected”
hears the case of the Jeremianic seer Jesus son of Anan- in preceding section) and as such an intelligible figure,
ias, but releases him on the assumption that Jesus is bent on peace but facing pressures from all sides, in
mad (implying that, had the accused been considered Antiquities, highlights (especially if he knew the Antiqui-
dangerous, Albinus would certainly have punished him ties material while writing War ) his manipulation of his
as a governor should; 6.305). material here to sustain his characterization of a mali-
1734
Given what follows, it seems that Josephus wishes cious Roman administration.
to make Albinus appear here as a mini-Caligula (see 2.184
224 book two

local council in each [region]1738 or by former procurators.1739 Only the one who had not
paid was left in the lurch in the jails1740 as a sorry [individual].1741
Banditry grows 274 At this time, too, the audacious actions1742 of those wanting to foment revolution1743
in Judea. Ant. in Hierosolyma became more confident:1744 the powerful [men]1745 were cultivating Albi-
20.215
nus with funds1746 to procure impunity1747 for their agitating,1748 whereas, of the populace,
the [element] that was not happy with tranquillity1749 was turning away to Albinus’ asso-
ciates.1750 275 And each of the worthless [fellows],1751 undergirding1752 himself with his
own brigade,1753 just like a chief bandit1754 or a tyrant,1755 rose up over his company and

1738 1745
This is a rare if still oblique insight into the role See the note at 2.239. Josephus thus divides
of regional councils in combatting banditry. Cf. Ando the rebellion-inclined part of the population just as he
2006: 191: “Without a doubt, the vast majority of polic- divides the whole nation: between the small élite and
ing [in the provinces generally] was performed by local the masses.
1746
authorities.” We do not know how they achieved this, or Just as in the Petronius episodes (2.199), the upper
with what practical support, in this period. class have privileged access to the governor himself
1739
Cumanus, Felix, and Festus have all been credited for discussion (here allegedly for nefarious purposes);
with aggressive action against bandits. Cuspius Fadus he can deal with the common masses only in outdoor
and Tiberius Iulius Alexander were also credited with speeches.
1747
keeping the nation at peace (2.220), which implies simi- On the different nuances of ἄδεια, see the notes
lar efforts. So Albinus is becoming an anti-governor of to “amnesty” at 2.51 and “absence of fear” at 2.238.
the type that Florus will define; cf. the note to “bandits” Josephus will soon re-use the term in the sense of
at 2.229. “license” at 2.288.
1740 1748
Greek τοῖς δεσµωτηρίοις; see the notes to Greek τοῦ στασιάζειν, part of a crucial thematic
“detainees” at 2.4 and to “jail” at 2.180. The parallel vein in War (see note to “civil strife” at 1.10).
1749
(Ant. 20.215) omits this additional jab, having Albinus Greek ἡσυχία, the opposite of “tumult, yelling,
completely empty the detention centers by executions disorder” (cf. Essene meals at 2.130, 132), is an indirect
or by acquittals following bribes. That line has its own opposite also to στάσις, though ὁµόνοια is a more exact
rhetoric, however: it shockingly contrasts the country- and more common antonym. For contemporary politi-
side, which should be free of bandits, as now full of cal applications of the term, see Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.]
them, with the detention centers, which should be full 798f, 799a-c, 823f, 824e (paired here with ὁµόνοια).
1750
of bandits, but are now empty. See the note to “Albinus” in this section: only the
1741
See the note to “worthless” at 2.156, though the upper class have a claim on the governor’s time.
1751
nuance here is not as clear. Although πονηρός is often See the note to “sorry [individual]” at 2.273. If
rendered “wicked, evil” (used of the Devil at Matt 13:19), that context suggests the passive sense of “unfortunate,
it more basically indicates a person weighed down with miserable,” this one clearly implies malfeasance: “scoun-
πόνοι (toils, labors, stresses). Thus: “in a bad or sorry drels.” It is typical of Josephus to re-use words in close
condition, wretched”; by extension (on ancient status proximity, sometimes in different senses.
1752
criteria) a “low-life,” or “worthless, good-for-nothing, This is sarcastic language, as also (of the tyrant
useless” person; and from there, with moral assessment, John of Gischala and his followers) at 4.213.
1753
“a wicked, evil, malicious, criminal person.” Although Greek στῖφος: a tight or close-knit group. Jose-
this passage could mean that only those who could not phus commonly speaks of bandits and other undesirables
pay were actually treated as “malefactors” (Thackeray with this term (War 1.204, 347; 2.258, 275, 643; 3.450;
in LCL; Verbrecher in M-B; cf. 2.275 below), the verb 4.135; Ant. 8.204; 14.259; 20.180; Life 21), connoting
(ἐγκαταλείπω) might also suggest that only those with something pejorative such as “swarm,” though he can
no one to buy their freedom were left in such a sorry also use it neutrally of a military formation (War 1.42,
state. 149, 210, 251, 292, 295, 670). In a sense, these are not
1742
See the note to “brazenness” at 2.108. two different uses, since chief bandits or tyrants try to
1743
Greek is a key term in War ; see the note to “the replicate the machinery of state in their own para-states,
revolutionary bloc” at 1.4. including militias.
1744 1754
Or “more spirited, courageous” (ἐθάρσησαν αἱ See the note to this term at 2.56.
1755
τόλµαι). The θαρσ/θρασ word-groups are extremely See the note to “bandit bloc” (including discus-
common (nearly 250 occurrences) in Josephus’ works, sion of the pair “bandit and tyrant”) at 1.11.
in positive, negative, and ambiguous contexts.
book two 225

made full use of his “spear-bearers”1756 for plundering the reasonable [folk].1757 276 So it
happened that those from whom [property] had been taken were maintaining silence about
things concerning which they ought to have been indignant, whereas the unscathed,1758
in their anxiety not to suffer the same way,1759 even flattered1760 the person who deserved
a flogging.1761 In general, everyone’s frankness of speech1762 was being circumscribed,1763
whereas tyranny was ubiquitous1764 and the seeds of the imminent capture1765 were being
scattered in the city from then onward.

1756
See the note at 2.262. various contexts and nuances: see notes to “restrained”
1757
This is the first occurrence of a phrase (οἱ µέτριοι) or “respectable” at 2.281, 283, 306.
1758
that is often rendered “the moderates” and understood to The Greek noun ἀπλήξ (here plural) is exceed-
be a distinctive peace party in contrast to the rebels who ingly rare: Josephus is its first attested user (only here
wanted war, and that he (misleadingly) insinuates his and at 6.90, with a certain symmetry), and the word
own affiliation to the former. Having read this construc- appears again only with Gregory Nazianzenus in the 4th
tion into Josephus, some recent scholars then reject its cent. CE. More common was the equivalent adjective
historical existence, claiming that such a group is Jose- ἄπληκτος, which Josephus will use in his alternative
phus’ tendentious creation (Cohen 1979: 183, 195; Price version of this material, but for a different purpose (Ant.
1992: 37-40). It seems unlikely, however, that Josephus 20.255).
1759
means to indicate by this phrase a movement or party, The pattern is familiar: some are actually harmed
much less a political ideology. The phrase appears only by a given action and many others live in fear of the
4 times in War (all in bk. 2: 2.306, 455, 649) and once same thing happening to them (cf. 2.256).
1760
in Ant. 11.142. In that last passage, unrelated to the war, Flattery (here κολακεύω) is the standard antith-
it has the standard Greek meaning (cf. Demosthenes, esis of candid speech (to the powerful). Plutarch found
Or. Cor. 10; Mid. 185; cf. Thucydides 6.89; Plato, Leg. it helpful to write an essay exploring the differences
816b): the restrained (i.e., not lustful, impulsive, reck- between a flatterer and a true friend, which often con-
less, self-aggrandizing), honest, decent, respectable, fair- trasts flattery and candor. See the note to “frankness of
minded people. Similarly, in the present passage, the speech” in this section.
1761
reasonable folk are the victims of these new tyrants; their Because the Greek has a play on words, κολα-
homes are being plundered to support the bullies. When κεύειν τὸν ἄξιον κολάσεως, we have translated the last
we next meet them (2.306), however, they are victims of term to preserve the alliteration at least; it is normally
the tyrannical governor Florus’ soldiers—plundered, then rendered as “punishment” in this volume.
1762
arbitrarily whipped and crucified. There is no political Honest, straightforward speech or candor (παρῥη-
ideology here. σία), in contrast to obsequious flattery of those in power
The third passage (2.455) is revealing: following the (cf. 1.2-3), was a basic value of ancient moral and polit-
reprehensible sabbath slaughter of the Roman garrison, ical philosophy, identified with the free, fearless, and
to whose soldiers safe passage had been given, the whole noble mind, and most clearly exemplified in the Cynics
population was aware that this pollution would require (Plato, Lys. 178a, 179c; Gorg. 492d, 521a; Resp. 567b;
a divine punishment, and “each of the reasonable folk Polybius 4.31.4; 18.14.9; 6.9.5; 22.12.2-3; 30.31.16 [for
was anxious that he would be suffering punishment for absence]; Dio, Or. 3.3; Plutarch, Mor. [Lib. educ.] 1b;
the sake of the agitators.” Again, οἱ µέτριοι are simply [Quom. adul.] 51c, 59c-d, 66d-e—this essay is an ongo-
the good people, who are appalled by such abominable ing discussion of frankness in contrast to flattery; [Apoph.
behavior. In the final passage (2.649), the reasonable Lac.] 229c, 240b; cf. Acts 2:29; 4:29, 31; 28:31). It was
people are disconsolate because they see war prepara- also the bane of the powerful, and early emperors occa-
tions under way. They appear to the same as those (in the sionally punished senators and philosophers for such
next sentence, 6.250) who “loved peace,” in contrast to bold speech (Dio 65.12.2, 13.1-2). The curtailing of free
those fanning the flames of war, but this does not mean speech under Albinus prepares for examples under Ges-
that Josephus has falsely constructed a “peace party.” His sius Florus: after some of the people speak very frankly
narrative is much more complex than that. about his abuses, he will pointedly mock their pretended
The only consistent features of the people described freedom and nobility of soul (2.299).
1763
by this term, therefore, are mildness, decent instincts, Or “pruned,” a metaphor that leads directly to the
respectability, and therefore a tendency to be victims next, involving the sowing of seeds.
1764
of tyrants and others with power. Indeed, the following Tyranny is a prominent theme of the War ; see the
narrative of the last two governors uses µετρι-words in note to “tyrants” at 1.9. But it is almost always local
226 book two

Gessius Florus (14.2) 2771766 Such a man was Albinus, but Gessius Florus,1767 the one who came after
procurator; his him, showed him to be a most excellent man in comparison.1768 Whereas he [Albinus] at
blatant crimes.
Ant. 20.252 least practiced much of his sordid behavior1769 covertly1770 and with evasion,1771 Gessius1772
paraded1773 his crimes to the nation:1774 as if he had been sent for vengeance against the

1768
Judean tyrants who are in view. Here, Albinus and Ges- In Ant. 20.253 Josephus uses a different but paral-
sius Florus complement and catalyze the Judean tyrants lel form of sarcasm: Florus “was so sordid and violent in
with their own tyrannical behavior. his use of authority that the Judeans . . . praised Albinus
1765
The capture (ἅλωσις) of the city is not only War ’s as benefactor.”
1769
main subject; it also served as the work’s title for many The verb κακουργέω occurs only here in War,
readers in late antiquity. See the note at 1.10. though 29 times in Antiquities. The cognate noun was
1766
This paragraph is closely parallel to the final sub- used of Albinus at 2.272, and this repetition helps to
stantive paragraph of the Antiquities (20.252-58), before build a sense of building evil at the hands of Nero’s
Josephus’ closing remarks and introduction of the Life agents.
1770
in that work (20.259-68). Both paragraphs are conspicu- This notice comes as a surprise in War. Nothing in
ously short on content, long on rhetorical characteriza- the preceding two paragraphs has indicated that Albinus’
tion. Florus appears (also in the following narrative) as crimes were covert. Indeed, 2.273 declares them to be
a kind of miniature Antiochus Epiphanes, the first tyran- comprehensive and obvious, in the political sphere: the
nical plunderer of the temple and torturer of eminent raising of taxes and the emptying of detention sites. The
citizens (1.32-36). The nature of the War-Antiquities par- Antiquities parallel (20.254) is more cautious: Albinus
allels again raises the question whether Josephus already “used to conceal his wretcheness and would take precau-
had a fuller, Antiquities-like narrative at his disposal tions so as not to be completely obvious (ἐπεκρύπτετο
while writing War , or whether Josephus elaborated War τὴν πονηρίαν καὶ τοῦ µὴ παντάπασιν κατάφωρος εἶναι
in the later work. See the following notes. προυνόει).” Moreover, in the earlier account of Albinus’
1767
Procurator of Judea from 64 or possibly 65 CE career there, Josephus does indeed mention a number of
through the beginning of the war; Tacitus (Hist. 5.10) also private negotiations with Ananias the high priest, to free
dates the outbreak of war to his administration. Josephus detained sicarii in return for the freedom of kidnapped
has extremely harsh words for him in both narratives, at staff of the chief priests (20.208-10). These negotiations,
Ant. 20.257 averring that Florus compelled the Judeans which Josephus claims wrought havoc in Judea (20.210),
to resort to war. It is uncertain how or when his tenure do not appear in War ’s crisp and generalizing account of
ended: he is last mentioned in 2.558, after which it is Albinus’ very public crimes. It seems easier to imagine
difficult to imagine a governor having a presence in Jeru- Josephus here condensing a longer account (similar to
salem. At 6.238, M. Antonius Iulianus will be mentioned what would appear in Antiquities), and preserving dis-
as “the procurator of Judea,” in about mid-70 CE: he harmonious elements from it, than the reverse.
1771
may have been Florus’ immediate replacement, though Greek µεθ᾿ ὑποστολῆς. The noun ὑποστολή is
we do not know when. Arguing that the war broke out barely attested before Josephus (Epicurus, Ep. frag. 92
in 65 CE, rather than 66 as the communis opinio has it, [reconstructed]; Aristoxenus, fr. 42b-c; Asclepiodotus
Kokkinos (1998: 386) would end Florus’ term then. 10.21). He has it twice (also Ant. 16.112), however, and
According to the parallel (Ant. 20.252-53), Gessius it comes to be used much more frequently by his con-
was a native of Clazomenae (famed as birthplace of the temporaries and later authors (Heb 10:39; Plutarch, Mor.
pre-Socratic philosopher Anaxagoras), about 32 km (20 129c; 501d; Arrian, Tact. 26.4; Aelian, Tact. 30.3; Galen,
miles) W of modern Izmir (Smyrna) on the W coast Comp. med. 12.504, 521; Apollonius Dyscolus, Pron.
of Turkey. He or his family must have received Roman 2.1.1.92; Adv. 2.1.1.187).
1772
citizenship at some point, given his name. He reportedly When abbreviating the tria nomima, Romans usu-
had a wicked wife named Cleopatra (possibly Alexan- ally referred to their peers by the nomen gentilicium,
drian?), who used her friendship with Nero’s wife Pop- the middle of the 3 principal names—as Josephus does
pea to secure this post for her husband. here, and he will similarly call Cestius Gallus “Cestius.”
The cognomen Florus is widely attested (559 exam- Normally, however, he uses the governor’s cognomen,
ples according to Kajanto 1982: 233-34). Although it Florus (e.g., 32 times from 2.280 to 343).
1773
has been traced to the mythological fertility Goddess Paraded, as in a Roman triumphal procession
Flora (and the Floralia festival), Kajanto argues that the (ποµπεύω): 2 of the other 3 occurrences in War have
masculine form of the name more likely comes from the to do with the Flavian triumph (7.137, 154), and the
simple, happy adjective florus (“blooming”). remaining case (5.414) involves Judean tyrants parading
book two 227

condemned,1775 a public executioner,1776 he neglected no form of either plunder or tor-

ture.1777 278 Whereas with those who deserved pity1778 he was most savage,1779 among the
shameful he was most shameless;1780 nor did anyone pour out more distrust of the truth,
or contrive craftier ways1781 of acting the villain. To him it seemed trivial to make his
gains one man at a time;1782 instead, he was stripping1783 entire cities1784 and despoiling1785
populations en masse. He all but declared up and down the countryside that everyone had
leave to practice banditry,1786 on condition that he himself took a share of the war-spoils.1787

their crimes. Presumably, Josephus has chosen terminol- ture (initial ἦν governing two µὲν . . . δέ clauses) and
ogy that would resonate well with his Roman audience. include Florus’ pitiless character in the first clause, and
It is ironic language on several levels: that a governor yet they make a different issue of the second clause.
would boast about what should have shamed him if he Further, while War ’s parallelism hangs on the two super-
did it at all; that a low-level equestrian should enjoy this lative adjectives (“most . . .”), in Ant. 20 it is built on
kind of “triumph” when real triumphs were now denied matching privative adjectives (ἄτεγτος, ἄπληκτος [see
even to men of the highest dignity and achievement; and note to “unscathed” at 2.276 above]). Whether Josephus
that this governor should seek a personal victory over looked at War while writing Antiquities or he consulted
this nation, which is in fact part of the empire—though the longer version that would be used for Antiquities
the princeps has sent him to manage the province in while writing War, the comparison demonstrates well his
peaceful cultivation of the local élite. freedom in rewriting the same basic story.
1774 1781
Ant. 20.254 shifts around some of the vocabulary The same language (πανουργεῖν δολιωτέρας)
here (or vice versa): “Gessius Florus paraded his crimes will appear again in Josephus’ description of John of
to our nation, just as if he had been sent for a demonstra- Gischala (2.585); that re-use highlights the stock nature
tion of wretchedness, having neglected no form whatso- of the charges here.
1782
ever of either plunder or unjust punishment.” By contrast, Ant. 20.255 stresses that Florus could
1775
Josephus uses the adjective κατάκριτος only in not distinguish between great gains and few, but even
War, otherwise 3 times in bk. 1 and at 6.109. Of the made common cause with bandits. Since War will also
8 attestations before Josephus, 6 are in Philo (and 1 in connect him with banditry (below), however, the differ-
Diodorus 33.2.1). Josephus is again using “Philonic” ence is evidently rhetorical only.
1783
language. This verb (ἐκδιδύσκω) has an unusual history.
1776
Or “inquisitor.” Although δήµιος means basically Before Josephus it is attested only in the LXX, 4 times
“belonging to the public” and so “public agent” when (1 Kgs 31:8; 2 Kgs 23:10; 2 Esdr 14.17; Hos 7:1); after
used of a person, it had also acquired the sense given Josephus it does not appear again until 4th-cent. Atha-
in this translation (LSJ s.v.; cf. Vitucci: un boia; Pel- nasius and Ps-Athanasius. Although Josephus uses this
letier: un bourreau; M-B: Henker), which seems to be verb only here, he continues with different language the
suggested by the context here—as also in the only other same theme of Florus’ making a desert of, or stripping,
occurrence in Josephus (Ant. 19.42). Judean cities (2.279, 286).
1777 1784
See the note to “neglected” at 2.272. This (“ne- The cities in question seem to be coastal Caesarea
glected” + negative) is formulaic language in Josephus’ and Jerusalem (2.284-308), from each of which he will
descriptions of Albinus and Florus. At 2.306 he will use extract vast sums of money (2.287-88, 293).
1785
the formula again in connection with Florus (citing plun- See the notes at 2.258 and 2.271. The governors
der and murder, rather than torture). have changed roles, for Felix and Festus were destroy-
1778
See the note to “compassion” at 1.12. ing those who were ruining the land—the bandits—as a
1779
Ant. 20.255: “Whereas he was not softenable in governor should. See further 2.280.
1786
the face of pity. . . .” At greater length, Ant. 20.255 claims that, in his
1780
Greek ἐν δὲ τοῖς αἰσχροῖς ἀναιδέστατος. Since failure to distinguish great gains from small, “Florus
the roots of the two adjectives are different, one could made common cause with the bandits, and most people
translate the latter as either “ruthless” (though the point [or the masses] practiced this (banditry) fearlessly, hav-
seems to be that he was not ruthless with the shame- ing become convinced that their safety was secure with
ful, but joined them) or “unabashed, unashamed, brazen, him, on the strength of his share [in the proceeds].”
1787
flagrant” (though none seems quite right). Ant. 20.255 Josephus’ choice of words (λήψεται τῶν λαφύ-
continues the sentence (see previous note): “. . . he was ρων) is telling: “war-spoils” implies that war is already
insatiable with any [amount of] gain.” It is striking that in some sense underway.
both versions use the same quasi-poetic sentence struc-
228 book two

279 Because of that [man]’s greed,1788 at any rate, it happened that all the toparchies1789
were made into desert,1790 and many [people] rose up from their familiar ancestral [haunts]
and fled to foreign provinces.1791
(14.3) 280 As long as Cestius Gallus1792 was in Syria, managing1793 the province, no
one dared to send a delegation to him against Florus. But when he [Cestius] came to
Hierosolyma, at the onset1794 of the Festival of the Unleavened,1795 the populace—not less
than 3,000,0001796—stood around him, and they kept begging him to take pity1797 on the

1788
Florus’ greed (πλεονεξία), focused upon the tem- of the legionary eagle (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5), would be
ple’s wealth, will become the dominant theme of his term remembered among Josephus’ élite colleagues as “the
in office: at 2.293 he extracts 17 talents from the temple; blunder(s) of Cestius” (1.21; Life 24): the end of the last
at 2.328 he is intent on plundering the temple; 2.331 is a serious hope for averting war (2.499-55, esp. 2.531-34,
summary statement on the thwarting of his greed. 539-40; Life 23-28). For the consequences of Cestius’
1789
Or “cities,” as printed by Niese (τὰς πόλεις) fol- defeat—for the Romans, the Judean rebels, and the
lowing MSS PAM, accepted by LCL, Vitucci, Pelletier, peace-seeking élite—see the note to “Cestius” at 1.20;
and M-B. Niese allows, however, that the reading τὰς also 2.562-64; 3.1-4, 9; 5.41, 267; 6.338, 422; 7.18.
τοπαρχίας in LVRCExc and Latin (regionem) may well The cognomen Gallus (“Gaul”), like many other eth-
be correct, and Naber follows this reading. I favor it nic-geographical names, had lost any direct connection
slightly on the basis of context (the whole countryside) with the place of origin. It is attested from the mid-3rd
and the relatively early Latin. cent. BCE in Rome; 130 of its 370 attestations in inscrip-
1790
See the note at 2.213: the irony of turning subject tions are from Africa and Spain (Kajanto 1982: 45, 51).
territories (conquered precisely for their productivity and The same name will be borne by one of Cestius’ legion-
revenue) into deserts is a recurring theme in Josephus. ary legates (2.510).
1793
Here it is particularly pointed because a Roman gov- The verb διέπω occurs 8 times in War, always
ernor is (Josephus claims) directly responsible for the of a Roman official’s government of a province or the
depredations. empire, except 1.584, where the subject is God (govern-
1791
Ant. 20.256 uses very similar language while (a) ing heaven and earth).
1794
clarifying that the Judeans “were forced to flee, rising See the note at 2.10.
1795
up from their own haunts” by the depredations of the See the note at 2.10. This Passover would be in
bandits (so, a more indirect link to Florus), (b) making April 66 CE, on the standard chronology, or 65 CE on
the remarkable claim that they all fled, and (c) adding Kokkinos’ (see Introduction).
1796
their thought “that it would be better to settle among This is an impossible figure: 3 times the plausible
foreigners, no matter where”—highlighting the point that population of the world capital, Rome. At the end of bk.
their compatriot bandits, encouraged by Florus, were the 6 Josephus will refer to a census of the people taken by
main problem. Cestius Gallus at Passover (Feast of the Unleavened), in
1792
C. Cestius Gallus (cos. 42 CE: suffect for Clau- an effort to prove to a disbelieving Nero the strength of
dius in March-April [Degrassi 1952: 12]) appears to have the city. Josephus claims that Cestius determined that
been the son of a respected senator—a debauched old Passover created 275,600 sacrificial victims (6.424). He
man, according to Suetonius (Tib. 42.2)—of the same must have used local priestly knowledge to extrapolate
name (cos. 32 CE), mentioned by the elder Pliny (Nat. as Josephus does: each victim implies at least 10 cel-
10.124; 34.48) and Tacitus (Ann. 3.36; 6.7, 31; cf. Dio ebrants (as many as 20), and that includes only the fit and
58.25.2); cf. PIR2 2.152-53. He was presumably well holy—of whom there were then, conservatively, 2.7 mil-
into his 60s by the story time here. Cestius’ importance lion. Allowing for residents disqualified from celebration
in War is indicated by his appearance in the prologue to and for groups of more than 10 at a sacrifice, the count
the work (1.20-21). easily exceeds 3 million. Even if one could accept those
Nero’s legate to Syria from 65 CE at the latest until numbers, however, the prospect of 3 million persons (a
his death in early 67, it fell to him to try to stamp out the population larger than that of the City of Toronto in the
Judean revolt in late 66 (late 65 according to Kokkinos 2001 census, and at least 3 times Rome’s population at
1998; see Introduction), when he may have been nearing the time) surrounding Cestius and Florus, to scream at
70 years of age. His complete failure there (cf. Tacitus, them, does not bear reflection. Scholarly estimates of a
Hist. 5.10), with massive loss and humiliation for the realistic population for Jerusalem at this period, inclding
Legio XII Fulminata (War 2.555) and the reported loss pilgrims at festival times, range from 60,000 to 150,000,
book two 229

nation’s calamities;1798 they had screamed1799 that Florus was the despoiler1800 of the coun-
tryside.1801 281 He [Florus] was present—standing next to Cestius—and was ridiculing1802
the cries.1803 Cestius at any rate firmly repulsed the surge of the rabble and, after giving
the impression1804 that he would see to it that Florus was more restrained1805 in the future,
began returning to Antiocheia. 282 Florus escorted him as far as Caesarea,1806 deceiving
[him]1807 and contemplating war against the nation,1808 by which [means] alone he sup-
posed that he could conceal his own crimes.1809 283 For if peace obtained, he expected
that the Judeans would have accusers before Caesar,1810 whereas if he busied himself1811

with all of greater Judea/Palestine hosting no more than aggravate and provoke the Judeans to war.
1805
1,000,000. See the note to “30,000” at 2.227. Greek µετριώτερον. Josephus plays with the
1797
Or “take pity.” The collocation (ἱκετεύω + ἐλεέω) µετρι- root throughout this passage on the later gover-
is found otherwise in pleas for mercy directed toward nors: 2.275, 283, 306. See the note to “respectable” at
God (Ant. 6.42; 7.294; cf. Castor’s ruse at War 5.318). 2.275.
1806
Cf. 2.90 (a plea to Caesar in Rome concerning Judea), Caesarea was the headquarters of the Roman pre-
with a different verb of begging. Together with “calami- fect/procurator in Judea; Cestius would continue N on
ties” these words intensify the tragic tone. the coastal road, which was now (since the establishment
1798
“Calamities” (sing. συµφορά) is part of a funda- of Ptolemais as a colonia in 54 CE) of particularly good
mental tragic theme in War ; see the notes at 1.9; 2.186. quality from Ptolemais to Antioch.
1807
It appears now 3 times in rapid succession (also 2.283, Presumably, pretending that he is amenable to
285). restraint and a change of course, when in fact he is bent
1799
See the notes to this verb at 2.176 and 2.190: on war.
1808
Josephus’ re-use of the same colorful verb in contexts At 2.333 Josephus will present Florus undertaking
of protest against the Roman governor (only, in the first a new offensive toward the initiation of war by writing to
half of bk. 2) helps to give these episodes a similar atmo- Cestius to blame the Judeans for the unrest that he has
sphere. been working to foment (2.283-332).
1800 1809
Although the noun λυµεών occurs only 3 times in Conceal them, that is, from the princeps and his
Josephus (also 1.530; 4.159), its cognate verb λυµαίνω Syrian legate, Cestius. Josephus has claimed that, in con-
has been used in the preceding episodes to build a pic- trast to Albinus, he made no effort to conceal them in
ture: whereas Felix (2.258-60) and Festus (2.271) moved the province (2.277).
1810
against those “despoiling” the land (bandits), Albinus Notwithstanding the rapid escalation to war that
(2.278) and now especially Florus have themselves Josephus attributes largely to governors’ provocations,
become the chief despoilers, inverting the most impor- he also makes it clear that the Judean élite had regu-
tant responsibility of their office. lar recourse to the princeps in Rome, to appeal against
1801
MS P omits everything from “they had screamed” corrupt or pernicious governors. We saw this already
in this sentence to “the cries” in 2.281. with the delegation that visited Augustus to plead for
1802
The verb διαχλευάζω occurs again in War only freedom from Herod’s heirs (2.80-81). At 2.239-40 the
at 4.338, also in a charged context of denouncing accu- Judean leaders accuse Cumanus before the Syrian legate
sations. and then, successfully, before Claudius in Rome. Finally,
1803
Or “voices” (φωναί). Although it is conceiv- Agrippa’s fateful speech will be triggered by the demand
able that Florus ridicules other aspects of their voices for an embassy to Nero (2.342); it is Agrippa who tries
(accents, tone, way of speaking), in context it seems to to sidestep this because he sees the diplomatic compli-
be the content of the cries that he dismisses. cations. Cf. Ant. 20.182, on the delegations from Cae-
1804
Greek ἔµφασις meant something quite different sarea that went to Rome to accuse Felix. This all tends
from its English descendant: this emphasis was a mere to confirm Ando’s argument (2000) concerning the basic
surface image, a reflection, appearance, or impression. In consensus that Rome sought to create with local élites.
rhetoric it also had the special meaning of a hint or sug- These leaders evidently considered themselves part of
gestion left for an audience to decode (Mason 2005a). the empire, with established and promising channels for
Josephus uses the word only here and at 4.211, and he redress (cf. McKechnie 2005).
1811
seems to choose it quite deliberately for Cestius’ creat- A verb (πραγµατεύοµαι) that Josephus uses
ing a skillful rhetorical impression—of something that repeatedly in War 2 with pejorative connotations; see
will not in fact happen. In the narrative, Florus will be the note at 2.259; also 2.318 below (also of Florus).
left to his own devices and will immediately proceed to
230 book two

with [provoking] their rebellion,1812 by this greater evil1813 he would divert scrutiny away
from the more modest ones.1814 Therefore, in order that the nation might be torn off,1815
he intensified1816 their calamities1817 every day.1818
Nero decides: (14.4) 2841819 Now at this point1820 the Greeks of Caesarea, having won from Nero [the
Caesarea to right] to keep control of the city,1821 brought back the documentation of the verdict,1822
remain Greek
and the war took its beginning1823 in the twelfth year of Nero’s imperium,1824 in the seven-

1812
See the note to the key word “rebellion” at 2.39. 58 (Kokkinos 1998: 385-86), their absence has lasted a
This phrase (πραγµατευσάµενος δὲ ἀπόστασιν) is remarkable 6 to 8 years. Levine (1974: 384) doubts the
similar to the one used of the Judean visionaries who timing implied here, on the ground that such embas-
busy themselves with inciting revolutionary activities sies were usually handled efficiently in Rome. Kasher
and upheavals at 2.259 (νεωτερισµοὺς καὶ µεταβολὰς (1977: 255) accepts Josephus’ dates, proposing that the
πραγµατευόµενοι). So Florus has become a full partner case was delayed as long as Poppea Sabina, who report-
in the regional volatility. edly supported Judean causes and would therefore have
1813
Namely, rebellion leading to war with Rome. intervened on behalf of the Judeans, remained alive;
1814
Josephus continues to play with various applica- after he killed her in 65 CE, Nero was free to render
tions of the µετρι-word group. In 2.275, the restrained an abrupt negative verdict. Kasher sidesteps the chrono-
(modest) citizens fall victim to Judean extremists; then logical problems created by this hypothesis: he identi-
the extremist Florus will allegedly be brought to mod- fies this embassy to Nero with the one mentioned in
eration by Cestius Gallus; now Florus reasons that his Ant. 20.182-84, which left Judea after Festus arrived as
more restrained misdeeds will be forgotten in the face governor and involved the intervention of Pallas (d. 62
of all-out war. CE); the results were announced while Festus (d. 62 CE?
1815
Possibly from the empire, through the anticipated Kokkinos: 59/60) was still governor. But the two stories
rebellion to be generated by Florus’ harsh provocations; resist easy identification, or the building of historical
possibly “lopped off ” in the sense of losing its head inferences upon them. See note to “theirs” at 2.266.
1821
(2.59; 2.331; cf. Gaius’ actions at 2.184: ἀκροτοµέω). Cf. 2.266 and note to “theirs.” Since the city had
The verb is an aorist optative passive (of ἀπορρήγνυµι), always been Greek, this is another way of saying that the
which creates an unusual and somewhat poetic syntax, Judean bid for control had failed. The verb rendered “to
indicating potential purpose with the preceding ὡς ἄν keep control” (ἄρχειν) usually has the stronger sense:
(Smyth §§ 2201-2202). “to lead, govern, rule.” Josephus may have chosen this
1816
The metaphor (ἐπιτείνω) is of straining or tight- verb to create a play with the cognate noun later in the
ening up strings (as in a musical instrument) or ropes. sentence (ἀρχή), translated “beginning”: Nero’s decision
1817
“Calamities” (sing. συµφορά) constitute a funda- for Greek control in Caesarea was also the beginning
mental tragic theme in War ; see the notes at 1.9; 2.186. of the war.
1822
This is the second of three proximate occurrences in this Greek τὰ τῆς κρίσεως . . . γράµµατα. The dif-
passage (cf. 2.280, 285). ferent reply from Nero in Ant. 20.183-84 (to Beryllus’
1818
See the note at 2.256. request for an annulment of Judean civil equality in Cae-
1819
This bridging sentence implies that the cause of sarea) is described as a letter (ἐπιστολή). But Josephus
the war—in minor events at Caesarea that first involved often uses the two terms interchangeably (1.261, 641,
the procurator and then led to his escalation of the conflict 644; Life 50 53, 181, 241, 245, 255; Apion 2.37), and the
as he tried to cover up his misdeeds, in the 12th year of vague language here suits an imperial rescript.
1823
Nero’s reign—was directly connected with Nero’s rejec- How did the war arise from events in Caesarea?
tion of the Judeans’ bid to control Caesarea (2.285ff.). (1) Florus was reportedly determined to cover his
At least, the Judeans’ unsuccessful attempt to buy up incompetence there by fomenting ever larger problems
land owned by their Greek neighbors, in the following in Jerusalem (2.263, 293). (2) Anti-Judean sentiment in
episode, fits with Josephus’ notice about their greater Caesarea, seriously aggravated by these episodes, will
wealth (2.268), possibly with their effort to reshape the soon explode, resulting in the massacre of 20,000 Judeans
city with Judean institutions. and the flight of the remainder (2.457-60)—Josephus’
1820
Josephus returns to the story left at 2.270: the Eleazar will later concede that this was attributable to
emissaries from the Syrian and Judean communities in the long-standing antagonism combined with an oppor-
Caesarea were sent by Felix to Nero in Rome, to settle tune moment for revenge (7.361-62). (3) That slaughter
the dispute over the Judeans’ appeal for control of the in Caesarea will in turn drive the Judeans to a “savage
city. Since the story time is now 66 CE, and the delega- anger,” producing violent raids on several Decapolis cit-
tions had left Judea before Felix’s recall in 60 or even ies as well as Caesarea, Sebaste, Ptolemais, Ashkelon,
book two 231

teenth of Agrippa’s kingship,1825 the month of Artemisius.1826

Gaza, and Anthedon, which provoke further Syrian repri- ber 65 to October 66), then his first year would have
sals—partly from fear, Josephus remarks (2.458-60). (4) overlapped with October 50 to October 51 CE; but that
These many local conflicts across Palestine will compel would sit awkwardly with Ant. 20.138 (Agrippa ruled
Cestius Gallus to bring the 12th legion from Antioch Chalcis for 4 years before receiving Philip’s regions), and
(2.499-500), but (5) their remarkable defeat (2.546-55) Kokkinos argues (1998: 387-95) that Josephus’ reference
will give the Judean rebels hope, clarity of purpose, and to Nero’s 12th year at 2.284 is a mistake (for his 11th), so
energy for the sequel (2.562). that Agrippa’s first year was in 49-50 CE. See the note
Josephus’ phrasing, προσελάµβανεν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ to “kingdom” at 2.223.
1826
πόλεµος, implies an additional beginning, though no May-June, 66 CE. This is the first of a series of
other beginning-points of the war have yet been iden- dates that Josephus will give for events during the revolt,
tified. He may be anticipating later incidents (2.409, using the months of the Macedonian calendar, some-
4.318). This language is conspicuously close to two pas- times cross-referenced with regnal years as here. On
sages in Ant. 20, in which he says that the war “took its the Tyrian system of aligning Macedonian and Roman
beginning” when Theophilus was high priest (20.223: ὁ months, which many scholars have thought that Josephus
πρὸς Ῥωµαίους πόλεµος Ἰουδαίοις ἔλαβε τὴν ἀρχήν) followed, Artemisius was May 19–June 18, in 66; the
and in the 12th year of Nero, the 2nd year of Florus’ gov- corresponding Judean month was Iyyar, from May 15 to
ernorship (20.257: καὶ δὴ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔλαβεν ὁ πόλεµος June 12 that year (Levick 1999a: 40-42). Cf. 2.315 for
δευτέρῳ µὲν ἔτει τῆς ἐπιτροπῆς Φλώρου δωδεκάτῳ δὲ another date in the same month.
τῆς Νέρωνος ἀρχῆς)—referring the audience to War for Although Josephus had good reason to use famil-
details. The similarity of language suggests either that in iar Macedonian month names for his Greek-speaking
writing the Antiquities passages Josephus has War open audience, to modern scholars interested in the precise
or that, while writing War , he has available much of the chronology of events he has bequeathed confusion.
material that will go into Antiquities—a plausible situa- Macedonian months (as all “months”) were calculated
tion given earlier examples. on the lunar cycle, and so could be readily equated with
1824
Nero’s 12th year, reckoned from the day of his lunar Babylonian and Judean equivalents. But by the 1st
accession (October 13, 54 CE), the customary way in century BCE they had been adjusted to match the Roman
Rome and a system with which Josephus has shown solar year of 365 days, whereas the Judean-Jewish calen-
himself familiar (2.168, 181, 204, 248), ran from Octo- dar remained (as today) lunar. This resulted in the con-
ber 13, 65, to October 12, 66 CE. See note to “Nero’s stant shifting of true date equivalents from year to year:
principate” at 1.20. Kokkinos (1998: 386-95) points out, whereas the date of Passover, e.g., remained stable in the
however, that War 2.555 dates later events connected lunar calendar, it moved on the solar calendar.
with Cestius Gallus’ assault to the month of Dius (Octo- In Antiquities, however, Josephus will frequently
ber-November) also in “Nero’s 12th year,” which would equate—without considering the displacement—Mace-
not be possible if that year ended early in October of 66. donian months and their Judean counterparts (Ant.
Whereas most scholars take that notice to be Josephus’ 1.80-81; 2.311; 3.201, 239, 248; 4.84, 327; 8.61, 100;
mistake (for very early in Nero’s 13th year), Kokkinos 9.109; 11.148; 12.248, 412; cf. War 5.99, 567; 6.94,
argues that there are more and better reasons to judge 250). Throughout his writings he usually gives the Mace-
that reference correct and this one a slip for Nero’s 11th donian name, and in War exclusively the Macedonian
year. That would put the outbreak of the war described month, as here. Since the Macedonian months could be
here in May of 65 CE, and draw the entire narrative a aligned with the Roman solar calendar in different ways
year earlier than the standard scheme has it. This fun- (e.g., in Asia, Syria, and Tyre), the possible date range in
damental revision would explain a great deal, though it the Julian or (now) Gregorian calendars is considerable,
leaves significant problems unresolved; see critiques in and this is reflected in the scholarship.
Kushnir-Stein 1999: 196-98; Sievers 2001. After much scholarly debate over the system that
1825
Since calculations of Agrippa’s 1st year—appar- Josephus might have used, it is increasingly accepted
ently his appointment as king of Chalcis in 48/49 or that (with rare exceptions, driven by sources) when he
49/50 (see 2.223 and notes)—invariably call upon on the gives Macedonian dates he simply has in mind Judean
cross-reference to Nero’s reign in this very passage and lunar months, and pretends that the Macedonian months
count backwards, it would be a circular argument to cite are still equivalent. This was merely to make things sim-
those dates to calculate the 17th year. If indeed Agrippa’s pler for his Greek-speaking audience (and perhaps to
17th year overlaps extensively with Nero’s 12th (Octo- minimize use of Hebrew terms in the Atticizing War),
232 book two

285 Given the magnitude of the calamities [that arose] from it,1827 it did not have a
worthy justification.1828 Namely: the Judeans in Caesarea, having a meeting [place]1829 be-

but not because he knew the actual solar-Macedonian Pearson 1952, 1972; Hornblower 1991: 64-65; Rood
date of the event in question, which we could then map 1998: 208-10 and n. 9; Pelling 2000: 83-92; Price 2001:
to our own calendar. We are usually justified, therefore, 345-46).
in reckoning by the Judean lunar month, following the The present context, with its distinction between pre-
scheme of simple equivalents that Josephus provides in text and “beginning” in the previous sentence, suggests
Antiquities (cf. Schürer-Vermes 1.587-99; Bickerman that Josephus owes more to Polybius’ detailed treatment
1980; J. Price 1992: 210-30; S. Stern 2001: 34-38; Han- of causation (3.6-9; 22.18.6-11), which Walbank (1972:
nah 2005: 71-97, 135-88). note ad 3.6.3) understands as a deliberate criticism of
Realizing this, however, removes any hope of recov- Thucydides. Polybius distinguishes underlying causes
ering precise dates matching our Gregorian calendar. (αἰτίαι), beginnings (ἀρχαί), and pretexts or justifica-
Although such tables of correspondence exist for the tions alleged by each side (προφάσεις), whether true
Jewish calendar in the 1st century, they are calculated or false (cf. Luce 1997: 133-35; Shahar 2004: 144-45).
on the basis of mathematical formulas, whereas lunar Polybius’ theory of causation is an essential part of his
months were subject to the vagaries of physical sight- program: to write a pragmatic history for statesmen that
ing and announcement (cf. m. RH 1.3-7; 2.1-8). I am will enable them to deal with reversals of fortune. Under-
grateful to Jonathan Price for private discussion of this standing causes (the human intentions that produce con-
last point. sequences) enables politicians to separate what is within
1827
The antecedent must be “the war.” Calamities their control from what is outside it (viz., fortune), and so
(συµφοραί) generated by the war constitute a program- to behave honorably irrespective of outcomes. Although
matic theme of the work (War 1.9; see note there); this is Josephus can use αἰτίαι and προφάσεις more or less
the last of 3 occurrences in close proximity (also 2.280, interchangeably (Ant. 2.145), he typically contrasts
283). The phrase “magnitude of calamities” (µέγεθος them (pointedly at Ant. 7.285, 324), using πρόφασις to
συµφορῶν) is something of a cliché in Josephus: cf. 1.90, mean “alleged cause, pretext, pretended reason,” or even
372; 3.432; Ant. 16.77. Attested in the classical orators “evasion, subterfuge” (CCFJ s.v.). For some historio-
(Isocrates, Trap. 46; Evag. 14; Andocides, Myst. 107; graphically programmatic ἀρχαί in Josephus, outside the
Lysias, Diog. 19; cf. Aristotle, Met. 1022b), it becomes present sentence, see 1.18, 30; Ant. 1.6, 7, 27; 20.261.
formulaic among extant authors with Diodorus (4.11.2, “Not a worthy pretext/justification” should gov-
38.3, 55.1; 5.59.4; 11.57.2, 78.4; 13.57.1; 15.15.4, 48.2, ern one’s understanding of the following story. Thus,
58.4; 16.20.1, 81.3; 19.66.6, 95.7; cf. 16.3.1), though although the Judeans have suffered many grievous and
in the singular. See also Dionysius, Lys. 27; Plutarch, fundamental wrongs (e.g., under Pilate and Gaius), the
Per. 36.8; Fab. Max. 18.2; Comp. Ag. Cleom. 59.2; Mor. present episode does not fall in the same category. Jose-
[Cons. Apoll.] 116c, 193b. For Josephus, the enormous phus continues the even-handed approach discernible in
calamities include the destruction of Jerusalem and its the preceding episodes, especially in the initial Caesaran
holy temple, suffering and loss of life on a massive scale, conflict (2.265-70), which he claims was caused by an
and the resulting injury to the image of Judeans, which aggressive attempt by the Judean population there to
War aims in part to correct (1.1-8). remake the city. In what follows, a Caesarean agitator
1828
Or “pretext, alleged cause, occasion” (πρόφασις). will behave despicably (2.286), as will Florus the procu-
A considerable amount of discussion has attended rator (2.287-88), but problem arises because the Judeans
Thucydides’ indications of causes (distinguishing αἰτίαι are frustrated in their expectation of buying up the land
from προφάσεις), especially his paradoxical statement at adjacent to their meeting place, which leaves antagonis-
1.23.5-6 concerning “the truest πρόφασις” (Luce 1997: tic gentiles in control of it (2.285-86; cf. 268).
1829
83-84). The qualification “truest” is surprising, because We do not know where in Caesarea to situate this
a πρόφασις is most often a mere “pretext” (as Thucy- conflict. The exacavated synagogue by the coast, just S
dides 1.126), whether the word is connected with the of the gate in the N fortification wall, dates from at least
verb προφαίνω (exhibit, adduce) or πρόφηµι (state in 100 years later. Although one can sometimes find evi-
advance). Thucydides was influenced by medical usage, dence that later structures were built over earlier ones of
however, in which αἰτία (the term often used for a real a similar kind, Caesarea would become a major Judean
cause in history) represented a consitutional disposition center, with many meeting places, in the 2nd through
toward disease, whereas the πρόφασις (construed from 4th centuries, and Josephus’ language here implies that
προφαίνω) meant the externally visible indicators (cf. this was not the only synagogue even in the 60s. Since,
book two 233

side a site whose owner was a certain Caesarean Greek,1830 tried hard and often to acquire
the spot, offering a price many times its worth;1831 286 but while disdaining their appeals,
with added insult1832 he himself built across1833 the site, constructing workshops.1834 He
was thus leaving them a passageway1835 that was both narrow and constrained1836 in every

1832
however, the two foci of Greek-Herodian Caesarea com- Or “for spite” (πρὸς ἐπήρειαν). This appears to
prised the theater-palace-hippodrome complex to the S reflect Josephus’ authoritative perspective as narrator,
and the inner harbor to the N (with its massive temple not merely that of the Caesarean’s Judean neighbors in
platform), it stands to reason that vacant land available the story. Yet he provides enough information to allow
for the development envisaged here would be to the N the audience to see different perspectives, reinforcing the
or E/NE of these heavily developed areas. sense of an even-handed portrayal of tensions growing,
One may either translate συναγωγή, as we have done in both communities, in these typical life situations. That
here, or transliterate with the familiar “synagogue,” the Greek wanted to develop his land for commercial
which implies a structure of some kind (as the context operations (see note to “its worth” at 2.285 and “work-
suggests). Two problems attend the latter course, how- shops” in 2.286) would be an important and plausible
ever. First, Josephus uses the word only 8 times, in 5 motive, apart from mere spite, though it would not
contexts, and in 2 of these (Ant. 1.10; 15.346) it means exclude spite. Further, if the Judeans are left with only
other kinds of “collections” (of water or books); in the a narrow passage to enter their building, because he built
other 3 cases, where Judean meeting-places are in view near the edge of his land, then they too must have built
(Caesarea here; Antioch at War 7.44; Dor at Ant. 19. 300, close to the edge of their land—perhaps on the assump-
305), he always makes it clear that it is a meeting place tion that that they would be able to buy up his land—and
of the Judeans, since the word by itself did not simply the “abuse” or “spite” he shows in building across his
denote “Judean/Jewish synagogue.” He seems to use land may be his retribution for such action.
1833
“prayer [-place]” (προσευχή) as a more established term An interesting choice of words: Josephus uses
for Judean communal and devotional centers—without the verb παροικοδοµέω only here and it is rare before
needing to qualify that term with “of the Judeans” or his time, though Thucydides has it a number of times
“their” (Ant. 14.258; Life 277, 280, 293; Apion 2.10); in (2.75.2; 7.6.1, 4, 11.3); cf. Plato, Resp. 514b; Demos-
one case the word simply means “prayer” (War 5.388). thenes, Call. 17; Aristotle, Hist. anim. 623b; Part. anim.
Second, early Judean meeting places were so diverse in 672b. Its meaning is vague, but it carries the senses of
form and size (some adapted from private houses), that building along or across [the available space], possibly
to use “synagogue” might suggest a clearer picture than with the effect of using up the space (as here).
1834
is warranted. For the essential complications, see Urman Given ancient conditions, in which “retail” was
and Flesher 1995; Fine 1996; Levine 2000; Runesson not the routine category it is today (in contrast to pro-
2001; Rajak 2002; Richardson 2004; Levine 2004. ducing, manufacturing, transporting, warehousing, and
1830
See the note to “Syrians there” at 2.266. supplying), these “workshops” (ἐργαστήρια) might in
1831
“Worth” or “value” (ἀξία) perhaps plays off large measure be simply “shops,” where goods such as
the “worthy” (ἀξίαν from ἄξιος) cause that the war food and clothing were both made and sold. Storage of
lacked (previous sentence, beginning of this section). some goods, whether raw ingredients or saleable prod-
The Judeans’ reported willingness and ability to buy up ucts, would also be necessary; note the “container” at
land at many times its value gives concrete meaning to 2.289.
1835
Josephus’ claim at 2.268 that they had the advantage At 2.289, this passageway (πάροδος) will be
over their neighbors in wealth. See also the notice about explained as the entrance (εἴσοδος). Although one
the Judean contractor and the bribe to Florus at 2.287. should generally translate minimally, allowing the author
Josephus does not explain what criteria he uses for land to specify nuances, it is possible that Josephus means
valuation. In the next section we learn that the Caesarean his terminology in the more formal sense of a parodos
quickly developed the land for commercial use. That to a theater, if the Judean meeting place had a some-
would make sense: he bought land at a good price in a what formal entrance. Again (see note to “insult” in
growing area, where the Judeans were also building a this section), Josephus takes an authoritative position as
meeting place; they hoped to buy the land from him and narrator, while also leaving enough information for the
offered many times what he had paid for it (which may audience to understand different perspectives. At this
be its “worth”), but he had intended to build on it for point he emphasizes the bad behavior of the Caesar-
increasing revenue. Obviously, his land would be worth ean, in building so close to Judean land. Yet perhaps the
much more after such development. Caesarean was upset that they had built so close to the
234 book two

direction. So at first, the more hot-headed of the youths1837 were plunging ahead1838 and
trying to hinder construction.1839 287 Whereas Florus was restraining these [people] from
violence,1840 the powerful [men]1841 of the Judeans, among whom was Ioannes1842 the
public contractor,1843 being completely stumped,1844 persuaded* Florus with eight talents
of silver1845 to prevent1846 the project. 288 Yet he, being [interested] only in the taking,1847
after promising to cooperate in everything, took [the money], absconded* from Caesarea

border of the two properties, limiting his options, and he alent to Latin publicanus, a public contractor whose port-
was retailiating out of spite. folio might include local tax collection or port duties, but
1836
Or “forced.” Josephus’ adjective (βίαιος) has who might also manage building and other projects under
more menace in it than can be readily translated, either imperial contract; cf. Badian 1972. Although Iulius Cae-
indicating some characteristic that exacerbated the nar- sar and then Augustus dramatically curtailed the activi-
rowness or simply stressing the uncomfortable narrow- ties of corporations of publicani, and basic tax collection
ness. It is often used of violent persons (cf. 2.443, 597) became much more systematic and census-based in the
and so suggests an act of implicit violence on the part early empire (cf. Ando 2006: 186-87), public contractors
of the landowner. The Judean youth will soon respond continued to operate (Brunt 1983: 46-7). That Ioannes is
with real violence (βία, in 2.287). singled out as a publican suggests that his tax-collecting
1837
See the notes to “youths” at 2.225 and to “spirited was not merely a function of his role as a civic official;
ones” at 2.238. The stereoptypical distinction between the taxes in question therefore are likely to have been
impulsive or reckless youth and sober seniors (also 2.290 port or transit duties, rather than those for which local
below) is a regular component of Josephus’ dramatic élites were ordinarily responsible as a body (personal and
scenes. land taxes plus tribute). At any rate: Ioannes is evidently
1838
See the note at 2.47: this colorful verb of daring a wealthy person.
1844
movement is characteristic of War . Or “resourceless, at a loss” (ἀµηχανοῦντες). The
1839
That the Judean youth were able to hinder con- élite saw no hope of ending the project through previ-
struction until restrained by the army (next sentence) ously tried channels, including physical intimidation by
suggest that—in the story world—this Greek did not their younger men, and so resorted to the only route left:
yet have much physical support from his community. buying the governor’s support.
1845
It may also support Josephus’ earlier claim (2.268) that For a local community to offer as a bribe, this
the Judeans had physical strength on their side, perhaps was an extraordinary sum: worth more than 200 years
meaning that their community was younger or had a of a legionary soldier’s gross annual salary; see the note
larger number of strong young men. to “talents” at 2.50. The effort supports Josephus’ claim
1840
No doubt, as before and after (2.268-70, 291), above (2.268) that the Judean community of Caesarea
Florus acts by means of his auxiliary cohorts, drawn had an advantage over their Syrian neighbors in wealth.
from the Syrian-Greek inhabitants of Caesarea and Cf. 2.293 below, where Florus will take another 17 tal-
Sebaste. The retaliatory violence here (βία) answers the ents from the temple.
1846
“violent, forced, constrained” (βίαιος) passageway that One of several words that Josephus plays with in
the Caesarean created for the Judeans, by refusing to sell this passage: διακωλύω picks up and intensifies κωλύω
his land and then building to its edge (as it appears). in the previous sentence (the Judean youths were “hin-
1841
As is obvious from the context, there is a signifi- dering” the project). It occurs again at 2.291, where
cant overlap between the “powerful” and the “wealthy.” Iucundus has been assigned to prevent civil strife; see
This is one of Josephus’ many terms for a community’s the note there.
1847
élite members: see the note at 2.239. At 2.292 he will Or “being only on the take” (ὁ δὲ πρὸς µόνον τὸ
give Ioannes 12 associates as the “powerful”; see the λαβεῖν). That Roman governors should be “on the take”
note there. would not have surprised Josephus’ Roman audience.
1842
Ioannes (‫ )יהוחנן‬is the 6th most frequently attested In the Republic, Rome had established a standing court
name for males at the time (Hachlili 2005: 200). On this (quaestio de repetundis) for the prosecution of returning
Ioannes, see further 2.292. governors, and about 50% of those charged seem to have
1843
In mentioning profession without explanation, been condemned (Lintott 1999: 161). Notwithstanding
Josephus apparently expects his audience to understand important changes under the principate (especially the
that this is a wealthy businessman who can help furnish handling of many provinces by the princeps’ agents, who
the 8-talent bribe for Florus. This is the only occurrence were directly responsible to him), governors continued
of τελώνης in Josephus. The word can be a Greek equiv- to exploit their positions for personal financial gain. As
book two 235

to Sebaste,1848 and abandoned* the civil strife1849 to its own devices,1850 as though having
sold the Judeans a license to fight.1851
(14.5) 289 The next day being the seventh,1852 when the Judeans had assembled in their Greek sacrifice
meeting [place]1853 a certain Caesarean agitator1854 turned over a belly-style [container],1855 near synagogue
causes uproar
placed it beside their entryway,1856 and began sacrificing birds on it.1857 This provoked1858

Josephus remarks in describing Tiberius’ policy of leav- the Judeans, who have assembled for prayer and study.
ing governors in their provinces as long as possible, to This might suggest an urban scene such as we find a cen-
prevent the constant arrival of new officials eager to tury or two later in the cities of Asia Minor, e.g. Sardis,
make their fortunes: “it was only natural that every [one where the synagogue is near a central market area. While
involved in] governing should practise extortion” (Ant. the Judeans have assembled for their services, in the
18.171-78). context of long-standing communal tensions a number of
1848
In Samaria, the other major non-Judean center and the younger Caesareans set out to provoke them.
1855
Herodian re-foundation near the Judean heartland, from Josephus appears to imply that the shops built
which the auxiliary cohorts were drawn (2.52, 58, 63, 74, by the Caesarean landlord (2.286) are already in opera-
236 and notes); see War 1.403; 2.97 with notes. tion: though we would not expect them in fields, large
1849
Greek στάσις, a key term in War (see 1.10 and storage containers were basic requirements for shops.
notes). This is something of a topic sentence for the next Although Greek and Roman containers are customarily
paragraph, which is thick with στάσις-language: the nar- called “vases” in English, sometimes “jars,” they were
rator will pit a Caesarean στασιαστής (2.289) against often quite different from modern vases or storage jars.
τὸ στασιῶδες among the Judeans (2.290), resulting in There were at least 100 standard types of clay-ceramic
open στάσις (2.291), which the military commander will containers, of varying sizes (the natural limit being what
attempt to halt. a person could carry), which were often decorated with
1850
Yet in 2.281 we learn that the cavalry com- painted images (so “Greek vase painting”).
mander Iucundus had been assigned precisely to pre- Although some were simply decorative, they were
vent (διακωλῦσαι: same verb as used of the Judeans’ mainly used for storing, preparing, and serving oil, wine,
expectation of Florus while offering the bribe) the civil water, and foodstuffs. Only a few designs were of the
strife—not to prevent the construction, to be sure. “belly” type (wide near the bottom) and of sufficient
1851
Or “leave to fight.” This paradoxical expression size or stability for the sacrifice described here. Some
(cf. ἄδειαν . . . µάχεσθαι) seems to be found only in of the larger πελίκη-type vessels (20 to 50 cm [8-20
Josephus (also 5.334; 6.346). As in the preceding narra- in] high) might have served the purpose, as would the
tive (2.286-87), Josephus envisages that the Judeans— larger wine “coolers” (sing. ψυκτήρ), gold and silver
the ones with the grievance over the land situation—have versions of which were also used for storing fluids for
the main motive to initiate fighting in Caesarea. temple use (Ant. 11.15). The unusually large ampho-
1852
Josephus has explained to his Roman audience rae (ca. 50-80 cm [20-32 in] high) made to hold the oil
at 1.146 that Judeans refrain from all manual work on given to victorious athletes in the Panathenaic Games
the 7th day (ἑβδοµάς); there he also uses “sabbath” (6th cent. BCE and later), though they disappear from
(σάββατον) for variation of diction (as at 2.456, 517, the material record in the 2nd century BCE, might give
634), though in War he prefers the explanatory “seventh an idea of the sort of container used here. For images,
[day].” See the note to “seventh days” at 2.147; further see Oxford’s Beazley Archive (www.beazley.ox.ac.uk).
2.392, and note his great care in mentioning the day at For an overview of Greek vases, see Boardman 1998;
Ant. 1.33; 3.143, 237. for a discussion of Greek and Roman pottery found in
1853
See the note at 2.285. Caesarea, Berlin 1992.
1854
See the note to this characteristic term (στα- Given the context, we should probably imagine stan-
σιαστής) of War at 2.267 (also at 1.10), here picking dard Greco-Roman pottery rather than the distinctive
up the στάσις theme just announced again at 2.288. This Judean containers, in undecorated pottery and especially
appears to be a different person from “a certain Caesar- stone, that became prominent in the early 1st century CE
ean Greek” already introduced, the landlord-developer (Berlin 2005).
1856
(2.285). Josephus does not give a visual description of See the note to “passageway” at 2.286.
1857
the scene, but below he claims that this agitator was Evidently, the man was not merely killing a bird,
sent by other Caesarean agitators (2.290). It seems that as might routinely have occurred in such a shopping
the shops or workshops are now in operation, and so the area: he was killing several in series (given the plural),
Caesareans in this marketplace are in close quarters with with some sort of overt ritual appropriate for sacrifice:
236 book two

the Judeans beyond remedy,1859 on the ground that their laws had been outraged1860 and
their site1861 polluted.1862 290 Whereas the stable1863 and mild [element] considered it proper
to retreat1864 to the governors,1865 the factious [element],1866 having become inflamed by
virtue of youth,1867 were burning for a fight. The insurgents1868 among the Caesareans
also stood ready—for by a scheme,1869 they had sent forward the man performing the

setting up a cult image (“idol”), offering incantations, other cases of alleged violation of the laws, where the
separating out various parts of the sacrificial victim, add- precise cause is not clear, see the notes to “trampled” at
ing libations, or the like. It is striking again how little 2.170 and “pure olive oil” at Life 74 in BJP 9.
1861
Josephus relates about the scene and the precise cause Note the repetition of the word used of the Cae-
for objection. sarean site (2.285-86). This re-use and Josephus’ choice
Birds were commonly sacrificed in ancient traditions, of ὡς as conjunction introduces an element of doubt as
including the Judean. For Greek sacrifice of birds, e.g., see to whether the narrator affirms the Judean perspective
Pausanias 2.11.7; 4.31.9; 7.18.12; 10.32.16. Each deity (since nothing has actually happened on their own site)
had a preferred menu, which had to be carefully moni- or merely reports it with narrative distance.
1862
tored, and each locale had its own traditions. Although Pollution is a prominent theme in War, the verb
Pausanias often mentions birds along with other vic- µιαίνω and cognates occurring 36 times; see the notes
tims, to indicate the comprehensiveness of an offering, to “pollutes” at 2.132 and “polluted” at 2.210.
1863
the choice of victim can also be a question of what the Or “well grounded, well placed, positioned.” This
sacrificer can afford, as in the biblical prescriptions (Lev is the only occurrence of εὐσταθής in Josephus. The
12:8; Luke 2:24). Of the Tithoreans in their sacrifices more common metaphorical sense of “(well built and
to Isis, Pausanias observes: “The more wealthy sacri- therefore) stable” is implied by the correlative “mild”
fice oxen and deer, the poorer people geese and guinea and the contrast with hot-heads.
1864
fowl” (10.32.16). Perhaps we should imagine here some Or “resort, flee up [to]”; see next note. Josephus
kind of fowl being offered up in a ritual way. Bernett’s uses this verb (ἀναφεύγω) often in War (22 times; only
claim (2007: 347-48) that the Caesarean’s sacrifices were 5 in Antiquities).
1865
“offenbar” a play on Lev 14:4, designed to make the The plural here might indicate either the general
Judeans appear as outcast lepers, seems to expect too category—i.e., as a rule, the Judean leaders would appeal
much of the gentile (or of Josephus’ audiences)—and it to the (successive) Roman governors to settle disputes
seems unnecessary. with other ethnic groups—or possibly the Roman hier-
1858
Provocation and indignation (cf. 2.293) are recur- archy of governors: grievances should go to the Judean
ring conditions in War ; see the note at 2.8. procurator and then the Syrian legatus, and ultimately if
1859
Curiously, the adverb ἀνηκέστως appears only in necessary the princeps in Rome. This appeal to gover-
War 2, and both of the other occurrences come in the nors for the remedy of injustices is already an established
speech of Agrippa II (2.347, 352; for the characteristic theme in the narrative (2.171, 175, 192, 225, 230, esp.
adjective, appearing 6 times in bk. 2, see the note to 233 [the mobs ran headlong into battle with Samarians,
“irremediable suffering” at 2.233)—confirming that as while the leaders approached the governor], 239-40
a thoroughly Josephan construction. [after failing with the procurator, they went to the Syr-
1860
Or “violated, abused.” This collocation (ὑβρίζω + ian legate], 243-44 [the legate sent the ethnic delegations
νόµος) is characteristic of Josephus: 2.230; 7.357; Ant. to the emperor]). It was indeed an absolute requirement
4.13, 319; 9.168; 18.348. In classical authors, the verb of local élites to avoid civil strife at all costs: if their
(“committing outrage”) is sometimes used as an equiva- struggles with another group were beyond their control,
lent of violating law or convention, but one does not they would appeal to Rome’s emissary as arbiter. Ando
normally speak of “outraging the laws.” Josephus’ use of (2000: 73-74) cites recently published papyri from the
ὡς as conjunction leaves room for doubt as to whether Euphrates area showing examples of individuals appeal-
he affirms that Judean laws were being violated. Since ing to Roman magistrates to settle serious local land
Caesarea was a Greek city, with a massive temple to disputes. On moving up the ladder of appeals, see Ando
Augustus and Rome at the center, in which sacrifices 2000: 381.
1866
were frequent, it might have been more a question of See the note at 2.91.
1867
propriety and proximity: the Judeans do not want to wit- See the notes to “youths” at 2.225, 286.
1868
ness (and thus feel implicated in) acts that are fundamen- See the note at 2.289.
1869
tally rejected as “idolatry” by their law and tradition. For See the note to this word at 2.107.
book two 237

sacrifices1870—and so an engagement1871 soon came about. 291 Iucundus,1872 the cavalry Judeans
commander1873 assigned to prevent [this],1874 came forward and took away* the belly-style withdraw with
law to Narbata
[container]; he kept trying to end the civil strife.1875 But as he was proving unequal to the
violence1876 of the Caesareans, the Judeans seized their laws1877 and withdrew to Narbata;
a district of theirs1878 is called thus,1879 lying1880 sixty stadia1881 from Caesarea. 292 The
twelve powerful [men]1882 with Ioannes,1883 after going to Florus at Sebaste,1884 began

1870
Josephus has delayed important information for forced passageway (see note to “constrained” at 2.286);
understanding the story: one might otherwise have the Judean youth respond with violence (2.287); now
assumed that a lone troublemaker or bored shopkeeper the Caesareans have the upper hand for the first time.
had set out to provoke the Judeans (2.289). This delay Until now, the Judeans have appeared as the physically
might represent deliberate artistry (like delayed informa- stronger (2.268) and more aggressive side (2.268-70,
tion in a novel or film) or it might reflect his use of a 287). It is puzzling that the auxiliary forces have been
fuller narrative that he has abbreviated too much, belat- able to keep the Judeans in check, but (in spite of what
edly realizing that he needed to disclose more to make seems a good-faith effort by the cavalry commander)
the story intelligible. they cannot control the Caesareans.
1871 1877
Or “encounter, combat, fight” (συµβολή)—a for- In the narrative, this notice makes good sense in
mulaic construction in War ; see the note at 2.232. light of what happened at 2.229-31: a soldier sent to
1872
In keeping with the pattern, we again meet a round up Judeans (for having apparently colluded with
Roman citizen in command of auxiliary forces; see the bandits) found a copy of the law, ripped it up, and tossed
note to “Gratus” at 2.52. His cognomen, meaning “agree- it on a fire; Cumanus was forced to execute him. If these
able, pleasant,” is widely attested across social classes Judeans feel they must leave Caesarea, knowing the tem-
(729 times with derivatives; Kajanto 1982: 72). He may perament of the Caesarean-Sebastene cohorts in particu-
well be the Aemilius Iucundus, also identified as a cav- lar, it stands to reason that they would take the laws with
alry prefect, who falls victim to the Judeans in Cestius them. This notice also prepares for Florus’ outrageous
Gallus’ abortive campaign (2.544). charge at 2.292 below.
1873 1878
This is a descriptive term (ἱππάρχης; cf. Ant. At 2.507-9, the only other reference to this area in
8.307; 14.210; 18.237), not necessarily Iucundus’ Josephus, he will report that Cestius dispatched forces to
rank or title. As we have seen (2.52, 236 and notes to Joppa and “the toparchy [or province in some MSS] of
“Sebastene[s]”), one of the 6 auxiliary cohorts based Narbatene.” This confirms that it was a chiefly Judean
in Judea (so Caesarea) comprised cavalry. The com- district (here χώρα), comprising many villages (2.509:
mander of such a cohort, if at the standard strength of “they plundered their property and burned down their
500, had the title of prefect (ἔπαρχος, praefectus); cf. villages”), rather than a single town. As a Judean enclave
Watson 1969: 25. In this case, Iucundus and his unit may in Samaria, it was a northern parallel to Acrabetene in
have been selected not only because of the advantages the S (cf. 2.235). The location of Narbatene has, however,
of mounted troops for crowd control, but also because proven elusive. This may be the region called Arbatta
the cavalry were the élite force among the auxiliaries, in 1 Macc 5:21-23, from which the Hasmonean Simon
and their commander was the highest-ranking, presum- rescued Judeans; it is most often identified with an area
ably the most experienced and trustworthy, of the cohort near Kefar ‘Arraba in N Samaria. See further Appendix
prefects; cf. 2.236, 298. A in BJP 1a. That location would explain the continu-
1874
This is the same verb (διακωλύειν) that was used ing movement of Ioannes’ group, to Florus in Sebaste.
1879
of Florus’ obligation under the Judeans’ bribe: he was to As usual, Josephus takes conspicuous care to
prevent construction. Although Josephus claims that he explain Judean realia to his Roman audience.
1880
left the civil strife to its own devices, clearly the gov- Whereas in his later writings Josephus uses
ernor had assigned this prefect to manage the situation. ἀπέχω to indicate distances between sites in stadia, in
The present infinitive here indicates an ongoing activ- War he divides the cases evenly: 7 with ἀπέχω and 7
ity, rather than the (aorist) single action that Florus was with διέχω—as here.
1881
bribed to undertake. Roughly 12 km (7.5 miles); see the note at 2.175.
1875
This, then, is the culmination Florus’ decision to If this distance is correct, as most of Josephus’ distances
abandon Caesarea, and Josephus’ narrative expectation for this part of the country are, the W edge of Narbatene
is realized (2.288). must have been in the gently rising coastal plain, not yet
1876
This is another term that Josephus repeats in Samaria proper.
1882
throughout this passage: the Caesarean leaves only a See the note at 2.287.
238 book two

lamenting bitterly1885 about what had been done and begging him to help, discreetly1886
reminding him of the eight talents.1887 He, however, arrested and confined1888 the men—
charging them with removing the laws from Caesarea!1889
Florus takes (14.6) 293 At this1890 there was indignation1891 among those in Hierosolyma, though
17 talents from
temple
they checked their tempers. But Florus, as if he had signed a contract1892 to fan the flames
of1893 war, sent to the temple treasury1894 and extracted* seventeen talents;1895 he had dis-

1883
The formulaic phrase (οἱ περὶ τὸν X) is usually city? Was the removal of any and all laws a crime, or
inclusive of X (1.287, 296, 609; 2.53, 236, 443-50, 453; only these ones?) Once again, there is much that Jose-
3.60, 336, 245; 4.203, 216, 301; 5.423; 6.15; 112), as phus does not report. He leaves the impression that
apparently here. This suggests a community board of Florus has done something scandalous or preposterous,
12. which opens the possibilities that (a) Florus indeed did
1884
Florus’ destination when he absconded from Cae- something bizarre (and inexplicable) or (b) Josephus has
sarea with the Judeans’ 8 talents (2.288). either invented this accusation on Florus’ part—it has no
1885
This verb is part of the rich lexicon of lamenta- significant afterlife in the story—or reshaped the original
tion in the War (see note to “mourn over” at 1.9): this charge beyond recognition. A sarcastic action on Florus’
form alone (ἀποδύροµαι) appears 9 times (of 16 in Jose- part might have had this form: the Judeans had failed in
phus). Of these, 6 are in the programmatically tragic bk. their bid to Nero, to have the city governed by Judean
1. Among the tragedians this form was not much used law; Florus revels in their defeat, mocking them now by
(Aeschylus, Prom. vinct. 637; Sophocles, Elect. 1122; “charging” them (though not on any legal grounds) with
cf. Herodotus 2.141). It appears slightly more often in having removed what they had intended to be the laws of
the Athenian orators and later Menander, but usage picks the entire city. It is impossible to reconstruct the history
up with the Hellenistic historians (Diodorus 12.17.5; from Josephus’ narrative alone.
1890
38/39.8.1; Dionysius 4.71.2; 7.33.3; 9.60.3; 11.30.7, It is far from clear how much of what precedes
39.6; 15.5.1). Most telling is Dionysius’ Comp. verb. is covered by the demonstrative pronoun: Were the
26.150, where he has Danae bitterly lamenting her fate Jerusalemites upset only because of the charge brought
although he quotes from Simonides to make his point, or (more likely) because of Florus’ ill treatment of the
the characterization (“bitterly lamenting”) is his own community leaders from Caesarea (accepting their bribe,
language. But Josephus’ War uses this form of the verb absconding, and then punishing them), or in general
more often than any predecessor. because of his failure to show any fairness in dealing
1886
Or “with embarrassment, shame.” Josephus uses with Caesarean problems?
1891
αἰδήµων only here and at War 1.452, though he has the This is the standard complement to “provocation”
cognate verb often. (see 2.289) in War ; see note at 2.29.
1887 1892
See 2.287. Possibly, given the theme of financial corruption
1888
Greek ὁ δὲ . . . ἔδησεν τοὺς ἄνδρας. See the note running through this passage, the verb (ἐργολαβέω, only
to “detainees” at 2.4. elsewhere in Josephus at 1.520; Ant. 14.201) has the
1889
If this is neither a sarcastic flourish of Josephus’ secondary sense here of resolving to make money from
invention nor a bizarre joke on the part of Florus, but generating war—more than the simpler absurdity that he
an actual charge with some legal principles involved, the behaved as though it were his business to create unrest.
1893
simplest explanation may be that the Judeans in Caesarea The 5 occurrences of this verb (ἐκριπίζω) in Jose-
had some sort of recognized standing (perhaps what phus are all in War 1-3. Note the cognate he has used
Ant. 20.183-84 means by ἰσοπολιτεία, though that was recently (of uncertain form because of MS variants) at
reportedly rescinded before Festus’ death in 59 or 62 CE; 2.265.
1894
see note to “theirs” at 2.268), and that removing perhaps Sent whom to the treasury? Evidently Florus
the main (?) copy of the laws from Caesarea, required himself remains in Sebaste (2.288, 292). See the note
for the Judeans’ internal administration of justice, was to “treasury of God” at 2.50 and especially the story
therefore culpable. The incident raises a host of ques- of Pilate’s draining of the treasury for the aqueduct at
tions (e.g.: What precisely was the political situation 2.175-77 (with notes). The following story has many
of the Judeans in Caesarea at this point, in 66? Did a verbal and structural parallels with the Pilate episode.
master copy of their laws exist somewhere as exemplar In both cases, crucially, the governor appears to have
for internal administration? In what language were these had the assistance of leading Jerusalemites in getting
laws written? How many copies of the laws were in the access to this money: there, because the public-works
book two 239

sembled1896 that [it was] for Caesar’s needs.1897 294 Confusion immediately began to grip
the populace: they ran together1898 into the temple and with piercing1899 shouts kept call-
ing upon the name of Caesar,1900 begging him also to free them from the tyranny1901 of
Florus. 295 Some of the insurgents1902 had screamed1903 the most shameful insults1904 and,
carrying around a reed basket,1905 were demanding bits of change1906 for him as though
he were destitute1907 and needy. He was not put off from his love of money1908 by these
[insults],1909 but was all the more driven by rage1910 to pursue wealth.

project required many months, and there is no mention to get rid of his unworthy emissary. This reflects the
of Pilate’s having stormed the treasury; here, because of sort of basic consensus between governors and governed
the pretext that Florus apparently gave; in both cases, that Ando (2000) has charted in compelling detail. We
because an assault on the temple would surely have do not yet have, then, the sharp division between most
found mention by Josephus. If this story has a historical of the people, led astray by demagogue tyrants, and the
base, therefore, the governor must have requested and Romans along with some upper-class loyalists, that will
been granted temple funds for imperial needs: perhaps dominate the latter half of the work, following the mur-
to fund further public works in the province, perhaps to der of Ananus and Jesus (see Introduction). The need
defray military costs or tribute arrears (see the note to to distinguish between the princeps in Rome and his
“Caesar’s needs” at 2.293). If the balance of the story procurators in Judea is one of the first points made in
reflects reality, we must then assume that the people the speech of Agrippa II, below (2.348-52).
1901
somehow became convinced that Florus was guilty of The prospect of local tyranny and the hope for
fraud. Josephus does not explain any of these matters, freedom from it—this under the overarching aegis of
though a historian would need to know them in order to Rome—is a fundamental theme of War: see Introduc-
make use of the story. tion and 1.10, 23; 2.22, 80, 91 with relevant notes. The
1895
Again, this is an enormous sum (see the notes to twist here is that, whereas most potential tyrants in
“talents” at 2.50 and to “eight talents of silver” at 2.287), the story are Judeans (monarchs and heirs, pretenders,
demagogues, and militant rebels), the tyrant here is an
more than 430 years of a legionary soldier’s gross annual
unworthy Roman procurator (see the note to “procura-
salary. Florus’ total take, with the earlier 8 talents, is a
tor” at 1.117).
round 25 talents or nearly 650 years of legionary salary. 1902
See the notes at 2.289 and 1.10.
This is equal to 600,000 HS—1.5 times the property 1903
The repetition of the unusual verb κράζω (12
qualification for an equestrian. Robbing temples was
occurrences in War ) helps to unite 3 passages in bk. 2
understood to be archetypal behavior for tyrants, whose
involving protest against Roman governors (also 2.176
overweening pride created “needs” far above those of [see note], 280).
ordinary people (cf. Xenophon, Hier. 4.11). 1904
Greek λοιδορίας αἰσχίστους. Although a seem-
1896
This verb (σκήπτοµαι) is particularly common in ingly natural pair, this collocation does not appear else-
Life (5 of 13 occurrences in Josephus: 107, 213, 248, where in Josephus, except at 2.298 below (where Florus
380, 388), where almost the entire narrative is a mirage is offended by precisely this [Josephan!] language). Out-
of deliberate misdirection. Cf. also War 2.614; 6.195. side of Josephus the pair is not attested, though Polybius
1897
A telling pretext, for it assumes that the imperial 31.6.4 comes close; later, see Dio 27.91.4.
administration’s right to temple funds was recognized 1905
There may be an added joke in the kind of bas-
by the populace: Florus was given the money on this ket being used: of many possible kinds, the reed basket
basis. In fact, it is alleged, he took it for himself; cf. (κανοῦν) was associated—though not exclusively—with
2.295. It fits with the Judeans’ willingness to give money sacred offerings and processions (LSJ s.v.); so, perhaps
for imperial causes that, when they learn of the fraud this is also mockery for stealing temple funds.
(next sentence), they still trustingly cry out to Caesar 1906
This is the only occurrence of κέρµα in Jose-
for redress. phus.
1898
See the note at 2.43: running together spon- 1907
This is the only occurrence of ἄκληρος in Jose-
taneously, as one, is a formulaic popular response to phus.
1908
perceived injury at the hands of Roman governors and The only other occurrence of φιλαργυρία in Jose-
soldiers in War 2. phus comes at 2.483, in connection with Noarus.
1899 1909
See the note at 2.6. This implies that Florus heard the insults; if so, it
1900
This is a remarkable observation, showing the can only have been via the emissaries returning to him
people and their leaders trusting the Roman princeps at Sebaste (2.288, 292) with the 17 talents.
240 book two

296 At the very least he should have gone to Caesarea and extinguished the fire1911 of
the war beginning from there1912 and disposed of1913 the causes of the disturbance1914—for
which [task] he had indeed taken compensation.1915 Instead, he rushed against Hierosolyma
with an army of both cavalry and infantry,1916 so that he might do his deeds1917 with Roman
weaponry,1918 and strip the city1919 through [the use of] anxiety and threats.1920
Judeans try to (14.7) 297 But the populace, wishing to shame him pre-emptively1921 from his rush
appease Florus, [against the city], came out to meet* the soldiers1922 with adulation,1923 and prepared
rebuffed

1910
Rage at the mockery, it seems (2.298-99). This 5 of his 6 units (each of roughly American battalion
is the only occurrence of παροργίζω (here passive) in strength), and possibly all of them, would be in Jerusa-
Josephus. lem rather than Caesarea.
1911 1917
This verb-noun pair (σβέννυµι + πῦρ) is formu- The MS tradition reveals either a lacuna in the
laic in War (5.472; 6.233, 243, 251, 256, 262; 7.405), text or the suspicion of one. Although the middle verb
though not elsewhere in Josephus. It occurs chiefly in ἐργάζοµαι can be intransitive, as rendered here by “do
bk. 6, where it is often literal rather than metaphorical his deeds” (or “work, act”)—and regarded by LCL, Pel-
as here. In the present context, it complements the ear- letier, and M-B—it is often used transitively with another
lier reference to Florus’ “fanning (the flames of) war” term expressing the aim or object of the work. Thus MS
(2.294; cf. 265). C adds “[do] what he wanted,” and already the 4th-cent.
1912
This notice reminds that audience that, in Jose- Latin has ad quod volebat uteretur. Destinon conjectured
phus’ view, the originally minor incidents in Caesarea a different verb: “so that he might furnish (or produce,
were generating consequences that would result in full- χρήσηται) Roman arms and fleece the city.”
1918
scale war (2.285). That is: Florus grossly abuses his power as gover-
1913
Perhaps “dealt with.” Although this common verb nor, cloaking his efforts to extort funds in the apparatus
(ἀναιρέω) in Josephus (451 occurrences), which literally of the Roman state. This formulation seems incidentally
means “take away, do away with, remove, wipe out,” is to give a positive value to Roman arms, as something
most often a euphemism for “kill,” here it is used liter- otherwise respectable; cf. 2.294 and notes.
1919
ally: it is not that Florus should kill those responsible for Most often Josephus uses this verb in its literal
the disturbance (since “causes” is feminine, not indicat- sense, “remove [someone’s] clothing” (Ant. 6.223; 7.4;
ing specific persons), but that he should put a halt to the 9.111; 12.213), but the 2 occurrences in War both have
conditions the Judeans saw as creating the problem—the the metaphorical sense of stripping personified cities
Caesareans’ building alongside their meeting places and (also 1.531).
1920
offering sacrifices in such proximity. This is akin to such language of more modern
1914
Greek ταραχή is a characteristic term in War military planning as “shock and awe”—the latter a pos-
2, charting the build-up to war. Especially relevant are sible translation of the first term, δέος.
1921
occurrences in the Pilate and Samarian episodes (2.170, This doubly compound verb (προδυσωπέω)
175-76, 240) and at the beginning of the Caesarea story appears to be a Josephan coinage: it is the only exam-
(2.266); see the notes to these passages. ple, not counting a 10th-century quotation of Josephus,
1915
That is, the 8-talent bribe described at 2.287 and attested in ancient Greek literature, though the verb with-
recalled at 2.292. Again, Josephus drives home that Flo- out the first prefix is found often—and several times in
rus failed not only in his clear duties as Roman governor, Josephus.
1922
but even by the demimonde criterion of honoring a hefty This is a typical scene in the face of a threaten-
bribe. ing army: the citizens come out to show their intentions
1916
If this force comprised complete units, it was an beforehand (whether bellicose or peaceful) and to spare
extraordinarily large force for a governor to bring. Of the city itself from attack in either case; cf. 2.213; Ant.
his 6 units (cohorts and wings), 1 was already stationed 16.14. This incident has an important sequel in 2.318-25
in Jerusalem at the Antonia fortress (see the notes to below.
1923
“Sebastenes” at 2.52 and to “cohort” at 2.224.). Florus See the note at 2.1. The very word εὐφηµία (at
appears to be bringing at least 2 more with him (the its root: “speech of good omen”) invites the expectation
cavalry wing and at least 1 infantry cohort), with the of provisionality or conditionality. Here it is a valiant
stated purpose of intimidating the population. Another attempt to overwhelm the governor’s ill will.
2 cohorts will arrive soon (2.318), meaning that at least
book two 241

themselves to welcome Florus attentively.1924 298 Yet that [fellow], having sent ahead the
centurion Capito1925 with fifty cavalrymen,1926 directed them [the Judeans] to withdraw,
and not to dissemble1927 with courtesies1928 now, towards one whom they had shame-
fully insulted.1929 299 For it was necessary for them, [he continued], if they truly were*
noble1930 and frank-speaking people,1931 both to mock him also when he was present1932
and to show themselves “freedom-lovers”1933 not only in their words,1934 but also with

1924 1929
Or “considerately, in a kind and caring way.” Greek [πρὸς ὃν οὕτως] ἐλοιδόρησαν αἰσχρῶς
Greek θεραπευτικῶς (cf. Latin cura) has connotations can only refer to Josephus’ language at 2.295 above. But
of attentiveness, care, cure, and restoration; see the note that is the author’s characterization, not something that
to “attentiveness” at 2.2. Josephus thus emphasizes the Florus could have heard. Similarly, in the next sentence
determination of the Judean leadership to overlook the Florus will reveal a knowledge of Josephus’ narrative in
governor’s bad behavior thus far, offering him the cus- the people’s demand for freedom from his tyranny (cf.
tomary attentiveness (cf. Agrippa’s advice at 2.350) in 2.294). Josephus continues to spin out his narrative as a
the interests of peace. creative work: whatever Florus may actually have said,
1925
This is another familiar Latin cognomen, mean- the chances that it matched what Josephus presents here
ing “big-head,” commonly linked with the gens Ateia. are slim.
1930
Although it is a pattern in War that tribunes and pre- The connection between nobility of character
fects of the auxiliary cohorts in Judea bear names indi- (here, being γενναῖοι) and frank, fearless, or candid
cating Roman citizenship (see the note to “Rufus and speech was basic to ancient moral philosophy: cf. also
Gratus” at 2.52), it is curious that this pattern should Plutarch, Mor. [Adulat. amic.] 68d; Lucian, Calumn.
extend to an auxiliary centurion, for such men were nor- 23; Dial. mort. 20.9. Lucian links nobility and frank-
mally appointed from the ranks as in the legions (Watson ness also with freedom, which comes next in Florus’
1969: 86-88), and so recruited locally in Caesarea and sarcastic message.
1931
Sebaste. The trend at this time seems to be going in This may be an oblique reference to 2.276, where
the other direction: at 2.63 we met a figure who was our narrator has declared that under Florus’ predecessor
apparently a legionary centurion, with a Greek name Albinus (hence: all the more, Florus), frank speech was
(Areius). curtailed. The nomen agentis παρρησιαστής appears
1926
Mounted forces (alae), even in mixed cohorts, only here in Josephus, and rarely before his time (Aris-
were formed in turmae (squadrons) of 30 to 32, each totle, Eth. nic. 1124b; Diodorus 14.5.7; Philo, Flacc.
commanded by a decurion. It seems odd that Florus 178). Indeed, Josephus’ Florus here seems to have taken
would (a) send a detachment of 50, and (b) under the a leaf (sarcastically) from the first of these passages,
command of a centurion (i.e., an infantry officer) rather Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (1124b): “It is also nec-
than a decurion. But Florus’ choice seems to highlight the essary that he [sc. the great-souled man, µεγαλόψυχος]
ad hoc nature of the task: a more experienced (apparently be both open in his hatred (φανεροµισῆ) and open in his
Roman) officer is put in charge of a substantial cavalry affection (φανερόφιλον)—because concealment is born
detachment, which is quicker and more intimidating than of fear (τὸ γὰρ λανθάνειν φοβουµένου) . . . —and that
a troop of foot soldiers; they are also the élite unit among he both speak and act openly (καὶ λέγειν καὶ πράττειν
the auxiliaries and so perhaps more trustworthy in deal- φανερῶς); for a frank speaker (παρρησιαστής) is thus
ing with such actions (cf. 2.236; cf. 2.291). on account of his being disdainful [of others’ opinions]
1927
Greek εἰρωνεύεσθαι. See the note to “dissem- and his being truthful, excepting whatever [he says] by
bling” at 2.26—a prominent theme in all of Josephus’ way of dissembling to the masses (πλὴν ὅσα µὴ δι’
writings, especially War and Life. εἰρωνείαν πρὸς τοὺς πολλούς).”
1928 1932
Greek φιλοφρόνησις appears relatively often in Florus has been in Sebaste until this march on
Josephus (11 times, 5 of these in War—bks. 1-2 only), Jerusalem (2.288, 292), having sent others to extract
though hardly attested before his time (Aristotle, frag. the 17 talents from the temple (2.293). We should pre-
9.56.670 [Rose]; Memnon, frag. 26 [Müller]; Ep. Aristeas sumably infer that he heard of the insults and mockery
246; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 10.46.8, 57.5; Ps.-Demetrius, (2.295) from these agents on their return.
1933
Eloc. 232). From his time onward, it is used more often In the narrative this refers in the fi rst instance
(Plutarch, Mor. [Apoph. Lac.] 212f; Dio Chrysostom, to the people’s earlier cries to (an absent) Caesar, in
Or. 7.89; Chariton, Chaer. 4.3.8; 5.1.8; Herodian, Peri the temple precincts, “to free them from the tyranny of
orth. 3.2.441; Apollonius Dyscolus, Pronom. 2.1.1.53). Florus” (2.294). The tyrant either has been anticipat-
242 book two

weapons.1935 300 The rabble were taken aback by these [words], while at the same time
Capito and his horsemen were being borne1936 into their midst: they were dispersed before
[having had the chance] either to greet Florus or to make their submissiveness1937 clear
to the soldiers. After withdrawing to their residences, they passed the night1938 in anxiety
and humiliation.1939
Florus holds (14.8) 301 Now at that time Florus set up camp*1940 in the royal grounds,1941 and on
hearing in the next day, after setting a tribunal-platform1942 before them, he seated himself;*1943
Jerusalem

ing Josephus’ narrative or he is presumed to have heard nistic authors, though Xenophon prefers the former (13
reports of these popular demands; now comes his reply. times), and Polybius (4 times) and Strabo (5 times) use
Both tyranny (see the note to “tyrants” at 1.10) and free- it only. So there seems to be no good reason to follow
dom (see the note at 2.259) are basic themes in War. MSS VRC in adopting the prefixed form here.
1934 1939
Perhaps the most fundamental and oft-repeated Or “dejection, lowness [of spirits]” (ταπεινότης).
demand of moral philosophers was that actions match The same pair appears at 4.147 in reverse order.
1940
words: Seneca, Ep. 20.2; 108.9-12; Epictetus in Arrian, Or “came to lodge, took up residence.” The verb
Diatr. 3.26.8-23, 37-39; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 70.3; αὐλίζοµαι (lit. “[occupy the] courtyard”) is possibly
Luke 4.31–32; 5.23–24; 7.18–23; 24.19; Lucian, Her- meant as a pun. On the one hand, it is used of establish-
mot. 9-19. ing a temporary base, as in a military bivouac (see 2.69
1935
Florus’ emissary now reaches the shocking con- and note); on the other hand, its cognate αὐλή is com-
clusion of his ironic little speech. The martial and heroic monly used (as at 2.312 below, of this very site) to mean
application of the principle that actions match words “palace [grounds].” Here, the bivouac of this conspicu-
goes back to Homer: Phoenix’s commission from Peleus ously unworthy governor and his auxiliaries happens to
to teach Achilles to be “a speaker of words and a doer be in a real palace courtyard, where he will confront a
of deeds” (Iliad 9.443). On the surface Florus is issu- real queen of Herodian descent (2.312).
1941
ing a moral-philosophical challenge: “Make your deeds Herod’s palace on the W side of Jerusalem, near
match your words; behave as you really feel, without the modern Jaffa Gate, from which only some foundation
fear of death; take up arms against Rome!” In a twisted stones survive. Like Herod’s royal properties in Cae-
way, this anticipates points made by both (Josephus’) sarea and Sebaste, as well as his desert fortresses, the
Agrippa II (2.355-57) and Eleazar son of Ya‘ir at Masada Jerusalem installations (including the fortress Antonia)
(7.323-29). But for a Roman governor to press this logic, became imperial bases after Archelaus’ removal. Given
in the face of a community that has come desperately the procurator’s residence there when visiting Jerusalem,
seeking to overlook his previous behavior and prevent the Jerusalem palace was also the temporary camp of
an escalation of conflict, is diabolically inappropriate auxiliary units travelling with him (2.329). Josephus has
to the occasion—as Josephus’ Roman audience would briefly described this palace’s construction at 1.402 (it
well know. comprised two massive and beautiful buildings named
1936
By their horses, since they are a mounted unit after Augustus and M. Vipsanius Agrippa, surpassing
(2.298). By this choice of verb, Josephus appears to even the temple in magnificence); at 5.176-82 (cf. Ant.
stress the intimidating presence of the cavalry: it is not 15.318) he will elaborate on the unimaginably impressive
merely that the soldiers are pressing into the Judean structure and its enclosures. At 7.1 he will claim that, in
crowd, but they do so on horseback, towering above the ordering the complete demolition of all remaining build-
crowd. The Judeans’ immediate dispersal, with horses ings after the capture of Jerusalem, Titus exempted the
bearing down on them, is no sign of weakness. 3 towers of Herod’s palace and its western wall, as the
1937
The adjective πειθήνιος is not attested before base for a garrison.
1942
Philo and Josephus, but it is used with increasing fre- The setting of this scene around the governor’s
quency thereafter—another case (see Introduction) in tribunal-platform (βῆµα), set up specially for the pur-
which Josephus rides the crest of new trends in language. pose (cf. 2.308), recalls the episodes of protest against
Moreover, the neuter substantive (τὸ πειθήνιον) as here, Pilate (2.172, 175-76). The repeated vocabulary makes
which he uses also at 2.498 and 5.121, is unattested in it hard to avoid the conclusion that Josephus has shaped
other writers before the late 2nd century, after which it all of these protest episodes to deepen certain themes:
becomes common. manifest injustice and arrogance from the governor con-
1938
This is the only occurrence of the verb νυκτερεύω fronted firmly but patiently by the Judean leadership;
in Josephus, though he uses διανυκτερεύω 7 times, as impetuous youth become increasingly visible and less
already at 2.312 below. Both are found in most Helle- susceptible of management by the leaders.
book two 243

Courtesy of Jonathan J. Price, from his Jerusalem Under Siege: the Collapse of the
Jewish State, 66–70 C.E. (Brill, 1992).
244 book two

the chief priests, the powerful men, and the most notable [element] 1944 of the city then
arrived and stood by the tribunal-platform. 302 These [men] Florus directed to give
up those who had insulted him, asserting that they would enjoy 1945 his vengeance1946
if they did not bring the culprits forward. But the [Judean leaders] made it clear that
the people were peacefully minded,1947 and they sought pardon for those who had mut-
tered careless things:1948 303 in such a large mob, on the one hand, it was hardly sur-
prising that there were men who were rather bold1949 and foolish on account of their
age;1950 on the other hand, the isolation1951 of those who had been at fault was infea-
sible, with each one repenting and disowning what1952 he had done.*1953 304 Yet nev-

1943
Compare the language here (τῇ δ᾿ ὑστεραίᾳ βῆµα The story humiliates Florus before the audience by
πρὸ αὐτῶν θέµενος [ὁ Φλῶρος] καθέζεται) with that at displaying the cruel governor’s weakness, vanity, and
2.172 (τῇ δ᾿ ἑξῆς ὁ Πιλᾶτος καθίσας ἐπὶ βήµατος), and ineffectiveness, and contrasting the wisdom of the
see the previous note. Judaean élite. Rather than capitulating to the governor’s
1944
On the 3 preceding terms, see the notes to “power- impulsive demand for satisfaction, these distinguished
ful [men]” at 2.239 and to “chief priests” and “notables” Judaean leaders appeal (unsuccessfully) to his better
at 2.243. They are all part of an assortment of terms for nature, affording him every opportunity to scale down
the nation’s élite, as a Greek-speaking audience would the rising tensions he has provoked. Cleverly invoking
immediately understand. the commonplace of hot-headed youth, these literary
1945
Although the better MSS (PAML) have an aor- characters wisely pretend ignorance of the perpetrators’
ist infinitive (ἀπολαύσαι) here, the sense apparently identities. In due course, Josephus will not hesitate to
requires the future (ἀπολαύσειν) suggested by the Latin name the bad seed Eleazar (2.408-9) and continue to
(esse. . . vindicandum) and adopted by Niese, LCL, chart this man’s tragic course of rebellion, which will
Vitucci, Pelletier, and M-B. result in the murder of his own father and uncle by the
1946
A paradoxical combination of verb and object lower-class interloper Menahem (4.225-45). Since Jose-
(contrast Ant. 2.48), suited to the perverse and bully- phus is determined to use Eleazar as a clear example
ing character of Josephus’ Florus, who appears in ever of youthful folly, it is hard to see why he would have
sharper relief against the determined political efforts of tried to cover up his earlier involvement in the foolish
Jerusalem’s élite. humiliation of Florus.
1947 1949
This is the first occurrence of a formulaic phrase Or “more spirited, brasher.” This is the same com-
(εἰρηνικός φρονέω) in War; cf. 3.30, 458; 4.84, 120; parative that is discussed in the notes to “bolder ones”
5.30, 110; 6.344. at 2.238, 267.
1948 1950
Josephus uses the verb παραφθέγγοµαι again That is, their youth: it was a well-established
only at 5.336. Goodman (1987: 154-60), observing that trope, at least since Thucydides, Aristotle, and Polybius,
the leaders’ disingenuous claim represents a failure to not to mention Homer, that young men were victims of
fulfill the obligation of the ruling class (to maintain law their untrained passions, which frequently landed them in
and order), argues that the real cause of their reluctance trouble; see the notes to “youths” at 2.225, 286. Josephus’
must have been their desire to protect someone. Given elders here present this as a normal part of the human
the youth of the offenders, he proposes, those being pro- condition, not as something peculiar to Jerusalem, and
tected must (historically) have been younger members seek a statesmanlike mutual understanding from Florus,
of the ruling class, in particular those gathered around who does not oblige them.
1951
the temple captain Eleazar son of Ananias (see below No doubt because the noun τὴν διάκρισιν (as
2.408-9). Eleazar’s father and his father’s friends would subject of the earlier infinitive εἶναι) alone sounds too
naturally have been concerned to shield them. Thus, it cryptic, the MSS MLVRC have added various verbs and
is not so much the elders in the story, but Josephus as phrases (Lat. discrimen agitari) to fill out the sense,
author who conceals the involvement of aristocrats in which remains the same: to make a judgment, distinc-
revolutionary actions (allegedly one of Josephus’ chief tion, identification.
1952
motives). Yet to reject Josephus’ context while extracting The Greek reads oddly: καὶ δι᾿ ἃ δέδρακεν
one element of his story—Florus’ search for his mock- ἀρνουµένου. MS L has a partial erasure suggesting καὶ
ers—and seeking an independent historical explanation δέ, and the dangling δι᾿ has invited conjectural emenda-
of that element, seems arbitrary. tions. Pelletier omits it. Thackeray in LCL, Vitucci and
book two 245

ertheless it was necessary for him, if he was concerned for* peace throughout the na-
tion1954 and if he wished* to preserve the city for Romans,1955 to pardon the few who had
caused offense on account of the many who were blameless,1956 rather than trouble1957
such a large population of decent [folk]1958 on account of a few worthless [fellows].1959
(14.9) 305 At this he [Florus] became yet more provoked1960 and began shouting* Florus’ troops
at the soldiers to plunder thoroughly what was called the Upper Market,1961 and to kill plunder
Upper Market,
those they encountered. They drew strength from [such] an authoritative exhortation,1962 kills even
in their lust for gain,1963 and not only plundered the place against which they had been equestrians
sent1964 but, bursting into all the residences,1965 they began slaughtering the residents.1966

1960
M-B adopt Destinon’s proposal δέει: “with (or because On provocation and indignation in War, see the
of) anxiety, fear.” note at 2.8 and the parallel constructions mentioned
1953
Of course, if an interrogator knew that a particular there.
1961
person was indeed repenting of what he had done, it At 5.137 Josephus will explain that his contem-
would be easy to identify him as a culprit. The ellipti- poraries call “the Upper Market” what David had called
cal expression seems to mean rather that, given a horde the “Fortress.” He is using the already traditional (but
of people in which everyone denies having done any- perhaps erroneous, since the historical City of David was
thing wrong (some because they have done nothing, oth- based on the eastern hill) designation for the area around
ers because they have disowned and denied their real Herod’s Palace, near the modern Jaffa Gate, which is
actions), it is now impossible to identify the culprits. where Florus is hearing the Judean leaders. According
1954
Although this is indeed the first and most impor- to that passage in bk. 5, the area that went by this name
tant task of a Roman governor (cf. Ulpian, Dig. 1.18.13. included not only a market proper (agora), but the entire
pr.: the wise governor “takes care that the province he summit of the upper W hill. Nevertheless, in the present
rules be peaceful and orderly”)—working with the local context Florus’ instruction seems to focus on the real
élite to create and maintain consensus (cf. Ando 2000: agora (cf. also 2.315), perhaps corresponding roughly to
71-205)— by framing it as a merely hypothetical condi- the space where the present E-W alleyway of the souk/
tion, Josephus emphasizes Florus’ reckless abandonment shuq opens to the square by Jaffa Gate.
1962
Or “gubernatorial exhortation” (ἡγεµονική παρα-
of this basic responsibility.
1955 κέλευσις). This is one of only two appearances of the
This is a surprisingly direct appeal to Roman self-
adjective in War. On its various possibilities, see the note
interest, perhaps reflecting a Thucydidean sort of recog-
to “imperial call” at the other occurrence, 2.207.
nition (as in Agrippa’s speech from 2.345) that Rome’s 1963
Greek ἐπιθυµία κέρδους. At 2.581 Josephus will
power will prevail in any case. Cf. 5.334, where Titus at
require of his own recruits that they abstain from all forms
first tries to storm Jerusalem without sacking it on the
of theft, plunder, and banditry, as he also will forswear
ground that “his chief objective was to save the city for
opportunities for personal gain while in military service
himself ”; cf. 1.27; 5.360-61. At 5.371 Josephus’ own (Life 80). At 5.558 he will comment, in relation to Titus’
character will make a Thucydidean appeal to Roman strictures against Arab auxiliaries’ cutting open Judean
advantage (τὸ συµφέρον): “this did not consist in having refugees to find internally secreted coins: “But avarice,
a city devoid of men, or a deserted countryside.” as it seems, disdains all punishment, and a terrible desire
1956
Greek ἀκαταιτίατος, a remarkable example of for gain (δεινὸς . . . τοῦ κερδαίνειν ἔρως) is ingrained in
War’s distinctive and characteristic language, possibly human nature.” Although the phrase ἐπιθυµία κέρδους
Josephus’ coinage. This adjective occurs 6 times in War occurs only here in Josephus, he may have been influ-
(also 1.494; 4.169, 2259, 266, 280), but nowhere else in enced by Theophrastus’ On Characters, which has the
Josephus, and it is unattested in Greek literature before only attested occurrence before his time. The section
his time. It will not appear again until the 4th century. devoted to “sordid love of gain” (αἰσχροκέρδεια, 30.1)
1957
See the note to “disturbance,” a key term in War , begins illuminatingly: “Sordid love of gain is the lust
at 2.170, and to “disturbance of the rabble” at 2.29. for sordid gain” (Ἡ δὲ αἰσχροκέρδειά ἐστιν ἐπιθυµία
1958
Translating with MS L the plural genitive ἀγαθῶν κέρδους αἰσχροῦ). The phrase will appear again in Cas-
rather than singular accusative to match the noun (in sius Dio 69.13.2.
other MSS), because of the Latin support: multitudinem 1964
That is, the Upper Market.
1965
tantam bonorum. The houses of the Upper City, to the E of Herod’s
1959
See the notes at 2.156, 273. palace, were owned by the wealthier citizens and upper
246 book two

306 There was a rush out of the alleyways1967 and murder1968 for those who were caught,
and no manner of plundering was neglected.1969 They arrested many of the respectable
[folk]1970 and brought them up to Florus; these, after first torturing them with lashes,1971
he crucified.1972 307 The number of those killed during that day, in total with women and
children included1973—for they did not hold back even from the infants—was about 630.1974
308 The novelty of the Roman savagery1975 made the calamity1976 more burdensome, for

priests, as the excavations around the “Herodian Quar- on especially gruesome forms in 5.449-51 (under Titus:
ter” (the “palatial mansion” and the “burnt house” [pos- first described in its savagery and then diplomatically
sibly belonging to the priestly house of Kathros]) in the explained), as the siege of Jerusalem reportedly produces
modern Jewish Quarter confirm (cf. Avigad 1983). hundreds of new prisoners each day; see also the note to
1966
The independent animus of the auxiliary soldiers “crucified” at Life 420 in BJP 9; Hengel 1977; Zias and
(see the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52), which is at least Sekeles 1985; Cantarella 1991.
1973
tolerated by Florus, helps to explain why Berenice will Including women and children as casualties not
come to fear them even as she takes refuge in the palace only adds an air of precision to the numbers; it also
with Florus (2.312 below). heightens the sense of tragic pathos. See the note to
1967
Josephus uses στενωπός (“narrow place, alley”) “women and children” at 2.192.
1974
18 times in War , but only 6 times in his other works. It Niese follows the normally superior MSS PAML
adds vividness to his narratives of conflict and violence Lat in reading τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξακοσίους. Perhaps in
(cf. esp. 5.336; 6.404, 406), by calling to mind the nar- part because this puts the multiple of 10 before the mul-
row streets of any city, a type known to his urban audi- tiple of 100 (cf. 6.425), MSS VRC offer τρισχιλίους καὶ
ence in Rome even if they do not know Jerusalem. Thus ἑξακοσίους (3,600). LCL and Pelletier prefer the latter,
he sometimes glosses the word with “of the city” (τοῦ M-B the former. That Josephus’ large numbers would
ἄστεος—1.414; 5.188). have been obvious to his medieval copyists, who may
1968
The collocation of plunder (ἁρπαγή) and mur- have therefore had a stronger inclination to inflate than to
der (φόνος) is characteristic of War: 1.34; 2.70, 654; shrink them, is an argument for the smaller number here
4.139, 165, 560; 5.265, 402; 6.271; cf. Ant. 5.25. It is not (as lectio difficilior); taken with the better MS evidence
attested with such frequency in other authors (Diodorus (including Latin), it has the decided advantage.
1975
14.53.2; 17.104.7; Plutarch, Sull. 14.3; Brut. 18.9; Galb. This is a remarkable phrase—the Romans are not
6.2). only savage, but here reach a new level of savagery—in a
1969
This is formulaic phrasing: see the note to work ostensibly claiming that the savagery of the Judean
“neglected” at 2.272, where the governor Albinus fails tyrants toward compatriots was the worse evil (1.27; but
to neglect any form of sordid behavior. 4.134: no difference in savagery between compatriots
1970
See the note at 2.275. and Romans). It seems that Josephus is not describing a
1971
The compound verb προαικίζοµαι seems unat- separate incident, but returning to draw out from what he
tested outside of Josephus before Eusebius. For Jose- has just described—in an already complete paragraph—
phus’ interest in the word group, see the note to “torture” details that will arouse the indignation of his Roman
at 2.179. Cf. also 4.259, where the high priest Ananus audience. Language such as this is enough to show that
accuses the Judean rebel “tyrants” of precisely the same the War cannot have been Roman propaganda, as it has
activity: arresting prominent Judeans in the marketplace, often been described in scholarship (programmatically,
first torturing them, and then killing them. At 5.429, the Laqueur 1920: 126-27; Thackeray 1929: 27-28), even if
Romans besieging Jerusalem, when they capture fleeing Josephus works consistently—and wisely, if not always
Jerusalemites, will subject them to whippings in addition convincingly (5.289-90, 449-51)—to remind Titus that
to “all manner of torture” before crucifying them. The he had been appalled by such cruelty (War 5.556). At
most famous story of severe beating before crucifixion 2.340 he will clarify that the Judeans respected all other
is that of Jesus in the gospels (e.g., Mark 15:15; John Roman leaders except Florus, because of his savagery.
19:1-16). We do not seem to find similar language in Greek authors
1972
Crucifixion, perhaps adopted from Carthage, was before Appian (Num. 2.1).
1976
an infamously brutal method of execution. There was A programmatic term (συµφορά), enhancing the
no single form, but many variations on the theme of tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9;
hanging from a stake or cross until dead. It will take 2.286.
book two 247

at that time Florus dared what no one before [had done]:1977 to put to the lash men of the
equestrian order1978—although their ancestry was Judean,1979 their status1980 was certainly
Roman—in front of his tribunal-platform and then nail them to a cross.1981
(15.1) 309 At about this time, King Agrippa1982 had by chance gone to Alexandreia,1983 Berenice
appeals to
Florus

1977 1980
No Roman governor, at least. In 1.35, near the Or “rank, dignity” (ἀξίωµα).
1981
opening of the narrative, Josephus described Antiochus Cf. Cicero’s castigation of Verres, more than a
Epiphanes’ daily torturing of the distinguished men, one century earlier, for having crucified a Roman citizen in
at a time (κατ᾿ ἄνδρα τοὺς ἀξιολόγους αἰκιζόµενος), Sicily (Verr. 5.62; cf. M-B n. 161 ad loc.). Several fac-
and publicly exhibiting his humiliation of the city. tors contribute to the outrageous nature of this action:
Although the Roman provincial governors usually held first, that a provincial governor would presume to punish
trials on their own authority (extra ordinem), with nearly Roman citizens without trial, let alone without allow-
absolute discretion over proceedings and penalties, there ing their right of appeal to Rome (granted that the right
were limits—especially in respecting the legal privileges of provocatio was not always honored [Garnsey 1968:
enjoyed by those among the provincial population who 23 n. 85]); second, that flogging and crucifixion, which
held Roman and/or élite local status. Garnsey (1968) were the punishments of slaves and foreigners, should
presents a vivid picture of ingrained Roman assump- be meted out to members of the upper orders (who, if
tions about the distinctions of social status before the convicted, usually faced fines, banishment, beheading,
law; such considerations evoke the sense of scandal that or forced suicide); third, that Florus—himself an eques-
Josephus might have hoped to create in describing Flo- trian—should dare to treat his peers with such contempt,
rus’ behavior. as if they were mere slaves. The dual system of punish-
1978
See the note (“equestrian order among the ment (for honestiores and humiliores) would be codified
Romans”) at 2.117. Quite apart from the summary pun- at the beginning of the 3rd century, with the formalization
ishments (below), this is a unique and important notice, of values that had long before been assumed (cf. Cicero,
the more valuable for being incidental and unelaborated: De re pub. 1.43)—and the legal principle seems to have
the Judean upper class included equestrians. Even in been effectively in place by Hadrian’s time in the mid-2nd
Rome, equestrian status was held by relatively few; its century CE (Garnsey 1968: 13-18).
property qualification could be a conspicuous reward by Florus is here the antithesis of the model governor
the princeps to personal favorites. Although we have evi- envisaged by Pliny the Younger, and his enlightened
dence in Herodian connections and Latin names for other senatorial circle in Rome. He writes to his friend Tiro
Roman citizens in Judea, it is surprising to hear of eques- (Ep. 10.5), new governor of Baetica: “You have done
trians residing in Jerusalem, since Josephus’ narratives splendidly . . . in commending your administration of
assume a basic division between the “mob” or masses justice to the provincials by your exercise of tact. This
and the élite (powerful, principal, notable men)—who you have shown particularly in maintaining respect for
seem generally to be influential men gathered around the best men, but, in doing so, winning the respect of
chief-priestly circles. It is all the more shocking that the lower classes while holding the affection of their
these equestrians should be beaten and crucified on the superiors” (trans. Garnsey 1968: 6).
1982
spot (see note to “cross” below): under the principate, Agrippa II, introduced at 2.220 and last mentioned
the emperor increasingly selected his own agents from at 2.247, 252 (with the expansion of his kingdom to the
this class, and charges against those in his service were N and E of Judea).
1983
usually heard by himself or by the Senate (Garnsey 1968: Agrippa will return from this trip at 2.335, to
12). This anomalous appearance of equestrians in Jeru- given an important speech (2.345ff.). The second-largest
salem raises the possibility that Josephus has invented city in the Roman empire after the capital (already men-
or exaggerated it; even one such person might explain tioned at 1.278, 598), was well known to Roman audi-
Josephus’ rhetorical use of the plural, and such an iso- ences as the once foreign capital from which Antony and
lated case (or two) is perhaps more likely than wholesale Cleopatra had challenged Octavian, and since then as a
invention here. major grain supplier for the world capital. For the city
1979
Greek γένος is notoriously multivalent and diffi- in general, see Delia 1991 and Harris and Ruffini 2004.
cult to translate: “birth (place), ancestry, origin, family- The most comprehensive literary sources for 1st-cent. CE
line, race, class” are all possibilities; Josephus might Alexandria, pertaining to the generation before Josephus’
mean that these people were born in Judea (cf. Cohen time of writing, are Philo’s Against Flaccus and Embassy
1994), but still achieved Roman honors, though this is to Gaius (also e.g. Mos. 2.35; Prob. 125; Contempl. 21).
not clear. See the note at Life 1. The city is mentioned often by other Greek and Latin
248 book two

so that he could celebrate with Alexander,1984 who had been entrusted by Nero with Egypt
and sent to manage it. 310 Terrible suffering,1985 however, overcame his sister Bernice,1986
who was present in Hierosolyma and observing the criminality of the soldiers. Often, send-
ing her own cavalry commanders1987 and bodyguards1988 to Florus, she would plead with

authors, and we possess a number of relevant papyri and while he celebrated, she suffered. See the note to “her
coins. Archaeological excavation, especially of the har- own cavalry commanders” in this section.
1987
bor (which contains many valuable remains of the royal On cavalry commanders, see the note at 2.291.
and Roman periods), is ongoing. See further the detailed The allied forces based in royal territories, controlled
notes at 2.385, 487-98 below. by Herod’s heirs, apparently followed the same century-
Alexandria will remain an important center through- cohort structure as their Roman exemplars; see the notes
out Josephus’ works, in different contexts: 2.385 (an to “tribune” at 2.11 and “Sebastenes” at 2.52.
example in Agrippa’s major speech); 2.487-99 (riots con- This is an intriguing notice, however, in its implica-
nected with the Judean rebellion against Rome); 2.605-21 tion that Berenice herself had more than one cavalry
(site of Vespasian’s acclamation by legions there, and a wing (hence their commanders) at her disposal. As in the
strategic focus for his imperial challenge); 4.658-662; present story, Berenice is normally seen in the company
Life 415-16 (staging ground for Titus’ second campaign of her brother, Agrippa II (2.344, 405; Life 48-49; cf.
in Judea); 7.409-47 (site of further troubles for Judeans Acts 25:13, 23)—so much so that rumors of incestu-
after the war); Ant. 1.12; 12.50-86 (the place where the ous relations were in wide circulation (Ant. 20.145; cf.
Bible was translated into Greek); Ant. 13.284; 14.117-88; Juvenal 6.156-60)—and they evidently share property
18.257; 19.278-92 (home to a large Judean community, and staff (2.426, 595; Life 343, 355). Because Agrippa’s
in frequent conflict with Greek citizens); and Apion, pas- territory includes—still, while Josephus is writing War—
sim (home of much anti-Judean literature). Philip’s former tetrarchy (including Auranitis, Trachoni-
1984
Tiberius Iulius Alexander, prefect of Egypt from tis, and Batanea), and Batanea had been settled by Herod
66-70 CE (the highest governorship open to someone of with “Babylonian Judeans” from the Parthian empire
equestrian rank), must have been around 50 by this time. (Ant. 17.23-30), the Herodian allied forces had always
Two decades earlier (46-48 CE) he had served as a young disproportionately featured cavalry and archers, the
prefect of Judea, and he will play a prominent role as renowned strength of Babylonian and Parthian armies.
Titus’ experienced adviser in the later Roman campaign. Thus, at 2.421 Agrippa II will send 2,000 cavalry (from
See the note to “Tiberius Alexander” at 2.220. Although just these areas, Josephus notes), under the aptly named
Alexandria was named by Alexander the Great centuries Darius—4 times the size of the cohort available to the
earlier, no audience could miss Josephus’ collocation of prefect of Judea (3.66)—to assist the chief priests in
names: Alexandria is now this Alexander’s city. Jerusalem against factional leaders; at 3.68, Agrippa and
1985
Greek δεινὸν πάθος is a standard phrase in Jose- other regional kings will each contribute 2,000 infantry
phus: 4.31; 6.89; Ant. 2.293; 4.222; 7.79; 8.221; 10.258; archers plus 1,000 cavalry to Vespasian’s army. Although
14.134. It was common enough in general usage (e.g., Berenice, like other Herodian women (2.98), was appar-
Pindar, Nem. 10.65; Thucydides 3.13.6, 59.2, 67.3; ently given particular cities with their hinterlands for rev-
5.93.1; Euripides, Suppl. 11; Electr. 1226; Bacch. 971; enue (Life 118-19), she does not seem to have controlled
Sophocles, Ant. 96; Plato, Pol. 308a; Demosthenes, armies; the cavalry commanders would presumably have
Lept. 48; Call. 25; Menander, Asp. 423; Polybius 1.32.8; accompanied her and Agrippa to Jerusalem.
2.59.1; Diodorus 32.26.2) that there was even a com- This prompts the question: With how large a cav-
pound verb δεινοπαθέω (Polybius 12.16.9; Josephus, alry force would Agrippa and Berenice have come to
Ant. 1.312; 11.306). It is unclear whether this suffering Jerusalem, if she had two or more commanders with
was the antecedent cause of Berenice’s coming to Jeru- her? Given that her own bodyguard is a separate mat-
salem to complete her vow (2.313), or whether, aside ter (next phrase), that Jerusalem was under the Roman
from whatever led to the vow, it consisted chiefly in procurator’s control, and that no actual cavalry forces
witnessing the soldiers’ outrages—or whether Josephus appear (e.g., to defend Berenice), it may be that the com-
means both. manders are something of a distinguished “general staff ”
1986
See the note to “Bernice” at 2.217. The queen was who accompany the royal pair on such diplomatic trips,
now about 38, the survivor of at least 3 brief marriages without accompanying forces.
1988
(2 while still in her teens). With this µὲν . . . δέ construc- See previous note. Life 398, describing a period
tion, Josephus seems to highlight the unusual situation just a few months later, will name a certain Sulla (a
that the royal brother and sister were separated, and that Roman name) as commander of Agrippa’s bodyguard.
book two 249

[him] to end the murder. 311 Yet he wanted to hear nothing about1989 either the quantity
of those being done away with or the nobility of the [woman] making the appeal, but was
distracted solely by the profits from the plundering [raids]. 312 Now the soldiers’ charge1990
was rabid1991 even against the queen.1992 Not only, in fact, were they torturing and dispatch-
ing1993 before her eyes those who had been captured, but they would also have done away
with her, had she not first managed to take refuge in the royal palace;1994 there she passed
the night1995—with a guard unit, having become alarmed about the soldiers’ assault.
313 She was staying in1996 Hierosolyma while fulfilling a vow to God,1997 for it is a

1993
According to Ant. 17.29-30, that role had been filled for This is the same word I normally translate
Herod and his descendants by Zamaris, the Babylonian “destroy”; see the note at 2.11.
1994
Judean of Batanea (with his mounted archers) and Zama- See the note at 2.301. At 5.17-77 Josephus will
ris’ descendants, Iacimus and Philip; apparently, Philip claim that the wall around Herod’s palace was 30 cubits
had risen to become “general” of Agrippa’s entire army (about 14 m/45 ft) high and built of massive ashlars,
(2.421; cf. Life 46 with notes in BJP 9). Ancient rulers punctuated by the 3 monumental towers of immense
typically had impressive bodyguards: Herod’s reportedly proportions. The site was an obvious place of refuge,
comprised German, Thracian, and Gallic units (1.672); and it will be used that way repeatedly. Since the palace
and even Josephus claims, if implausibly, a 600-strong built by Berenice’s great-grandfather, King Herod, is also
personal guard when he was Galilean general (2.583). where Florus is staying (2.301), and the place where he
1989
The verb παρακούω occurs in War only here and has set up his tribunal-platform (bema) to hear the peo-
at 6.288. The sense is of hearing something only second- ple, we should presumably infer that the governor him-
arily or incidentally: Florus simply did not hear Beren- self has given Berenice asylum, beyond the reach of his
ice’s appeals, even incidentally, because of his obsession undisciplined soldiers. Her continued anxiety about these
with greed. soldiers, even within the palace grounds, implies that
1990
Although ὁρµή here might refer metaphorically the Sebastene-Caesarean units are not entirely under the
to the soldiers’ emotions (“rage, fury”—so Thackeray in procurator’s control: it is their rampage (not on Florus’
LCL; “die schäumende Wut” in M-B; similarly Vitucci orders) that endangers her life. At 2.305, 310, and here
and Pelletier), in the context of military units it normally in 312, the soldiers appear to be acting independently,
indicates their assault or charge (cf. 2.18, 2.211-14, 296 emboldened in their opportunity to cause havoc in the
above), a reading that seems confirmed in this case by Judeans’ home city by the governor’s lack of concern,
the interchangeable ἔφοδος (“assault”) at the end of this and willing to exceed orders by a considerable step.
section. It is just conceivable that Josephus has in mind the
1991
See the note to this word at 2.213. Hasmonean palace as Berenice’s refuge (2.344 below),
1992
Berenice apparently had much to fear from where her brother the king lived while in the city, and
the auxiliary units drawn from Caesarea and Sebaste. where he had recently built a controversial extra story
Although they had been established as an allied force (Ant. 20.189-90); this would provide a different rationale
by her great-grandfather Herod, their subsequent attach- for her expectation of escaping the governor’s auxiliaries.
ment to Rome appears to have soured them on Herod’s If that is what Josephus has in mind, however, he has not
royal descendants (see the note to “Sebastenes” at 2.52). explained the point, but implies that it is the same royal
In Ant. 19.355-66 Josephus will describe at length the property just mentioned as Florus’ base (2.301); he will
ecstatic celebrations by the populations of Caesarea and introduce the Hasmonean palace later (2.344).
1995
Sebaste when Berenice’s father Agrippa I died in 44 CE. See the note to “passed the night” at 2.300.
1996
The festivities included the auxiliary forces’ seizure of See the note to “staying nearby” at 2.206.
images, apparently from Herodian property, of Beren- 1997
The vow in question is the neder nazir (‫)נדר נזיר‬
ice and her sisters; these were erected on brothel roofs or nazirite vow, described in Num 6:2-21 and briefly
and publicly dishonored. War’s Roman audience may mentioned by Josephus in his summary of laws at Ant.
have known about these incidents, which had reportedly 4.72 (see Feldman ad loc., BJP 3). The Mishnah devotes
disposed Claudius to relocate the Sebastene-Caesarean a tractate to the subject; cf. also Amos 2:11-12; 1 Macc
auxiliaries out of province; even if they did not know, 3:49. According to biblical prescription, the nazirite
War’s narrative has shown enough anti-Judean feeling avoids 3 things: cutting the hair (as Josephus, Ant. 4.72),
on the part of the auxiliaries to make Berenice’s fear drinking wine and all grape products, and contact with
understandable. corpses (Num 6:2-7). The last item is omitted by Jose-
250 book two

custom1998 for those who are being worn out1999 by disease or by some other stresses2000 to
make a vow: before the [day] on which they were going to offer sacrifices,2001 after thirty
days,2002 to abstain from wine and also to shave2003 their hair.2004 314 It was while she was
fulfilling these very things2005 that Bernice, bare-footed2006 and in front of his tribunal-
platform, kept begging Florus: in addition to her not meeting with respect,2007 she put at
risk her very existence.2008
Popular (15.2) 315 These things transpired,2009 then, on the sixteenth of the month of Artemi-
indignation
quelled

phus in both places, though his emphasis on abstention rather than the aorist infinitive found in the MSS, which
from wine and leaving hair uncut matches the biblical would sensibly have the abstention come after the shav-
examples of life-long nazirites—Samson (Judg 13:4-18) ing, except that the “and . . . also” construction would
and Samuel (1 Sam 1:10-23). Unless one accidentally make that awkward.
2004
contracts corpse-uncleanness in the interim (and so must As we have seen, the prescription actually requires
shave the head after 7 days of purification, Num 6:9), not shaving the head until the day of sacrifice that com-
shaving the head occurs only at the end of the vow, on pletes the vow. M-B rescue Josephus by rendering
the day of sacrifice (Num 6:18). The prescribed sacrifice “daß alle . . . die 30 Tage, bevor sie die eigentlichen
is expensive (cf. m. Naz. 4:7): a male lamb, a ewe, and Gelübdeopfer darbringen, sich des Weines zu enthalten
a ram, in addition to the grain, oil, and wine offering und sich dann erst die Haare schneiden zu lassen,”
(6:14-15); we thus hear of individuals paying the costs though the Greek (with the emendation of the previ-
of others’ vows (Ant. 19.293-94 with Feldman n. c ad ous note, followed by M-B) seems clearly to parallel the
loc. in LCL; Acts 21:23-26). future infinitives for wine-avoidance and shaving—dur-
1998
Although Josephus tends to fuse law with custom ing the 30 days before the sacrifice. A similar problem
as an undifferentiated body (as did most ancient authors), faces Pelletier’s reading (cf. Vitucci), that the nazirite
in this case he may be making an accurate distinction, abstains from wine and from shaving the hair, as though
since the following condition is not in biblical law. At the first infinitive governed the second—“fassent le voeu
any rate, he continues his standard practice (see Intro- de s’abstenir de vin et de se raser la tête pendant les
duction) of pausing to explain even well known aspects trente jours”—attractive though the option might other-
of Judean culture for his Roman audience. wise be. It is possible that a negative has dropped out of
1999
See the note at 2.49; also 2.329 below. the text, or more likely that Josephus is compressing to
2000
See the note to “terrible suffering” at 2.310. Does the point of inaccuracy: thinking that for a woman, the
that refer in part to a pre-existing condition, leading to (eventual) shaving of the head is the remarkable point
the vow? The Bible (see previous note) does not indicate worth mentioning, he does not consider it worth the
such a motivation for the nazirite vow. By mentioning space to spell out the intervening process, and so inac-
it, Josephus implies that Berenice was already suffering, curately pairs abstinence from wine and shaving.
2005
and it was in this vulnerable condition—also without Josephus appears to be emphasizing that Berenice
her powerful brother’s usual protection—that she cou- was not well when she had to confront Florus and his
rageously tried to deal with Florus and his soldiers (cf. auxiliaries, facing either illness or other serious prob-
2.314). lems.
2001 2006
This (ἀποδίδωµι θυσίας) is a standard phrase in Why Berenice’s feet are bare is unclear, though it
Josephus: also 2.416; 6.101; Ant. 7.196; 11.9, 77, 137; is possibly her deliberate act of humiliation and vulner-
14.27, as in other authors. ability, appropriate to a supplicant. Although a seemingly
2002
The Bible does not specify the term of nazirite obvious compound, γυµνόπους is attested in literature
vows. M. Naz. 1.3 indicates that one can specify the before Josephus only in Strabo (7.2.3), and in Josephus
length of the vow (units no smaller than a day), and 30 only here.
2007
days is the default length for vows of undeclared term. Josephus uses this word (αἰδώς) 3 times in rapid
According to 3.6, the House of Shammai also make 30 succession, with different nuances—also 2.317, 325.
2008
days the period for someone coming to “the land” after Especially in view of Josephus’ characteristic
completing a nazirite vow abroad, which is Berenice’s view of women (see the notes to “women” and “man”
situation here. at 2.121), this is a laudatory portrait of the courageous
2003
The verb ξυρέω occurs only here in War , though queen.
2009
several times elsewhere in Josephus. Niese prints Din- Josephus uses a portentous expression (συνη-
dorf ’s emendation to the future middle infinitive, to νέχθη), the aorist passive of συµφέρω, in a way that
match the preceding infinitive (“to abstain from wine”), could simply mean “happened” or “came about”. But
book two 251

sius.2010 On the next day the rabble, being extremely upset,2011 streamed together2012 into
the Upper Market2013 and, with terrific2014 shouts concerning those who had been destroyed,
broke into wailing;2015 the preponderance of the cries was also hostile to Florus. 316
Alarmed at this, the powerful [men]2016 along with the chief priests2017 tore apart their
clothes2018 and, each one falling down at the feet [of the protesters], pleaded with them
to stop, and not goad2019 Florus—considering what they had already suffered—into some
irremediable [action].2020 317 The rabble quickly complied, both out of respect for2021 those
making the appeal and in the hope that Florus would no longer act illegally 2022 against
them.
(15.3) 318 He, however, was troubled that disturbance had been quelled and, busying Florus plans
further
himself2023 with igniting it again, he summoned* the chief priests with the notables2024 and provocation
declared that the only sure proof that the people were not still going to foment revolution
would be [this]: if they would go out and meet the soldiers coming up from Caesarea.
(Two cohorts were approaching.)2025 319 Now, while they were calling the mob together,

since the verb is cognate to his keyword συµφορά 10:6). It often goes with wearing black sack-cloth and/
(“calamity”), and especially given that at its only other or heaping dust or ash on the head, as in several of the
occurrence (2.499) it is predicated of the related keyword Antiquities references above. Although the dust on the
“suffering” (πάθος), he seems to use it with a pregnant head is absent at this point, it soon turns up—at 2.322,
sense: “were brought to fulfillment,” “were brought to a where Josephus reminds the audience that the leaders’
result”; perhaps even “transpired calamitously.” clothes were already torn. The only other place in War
2010
See the note at 2.284: Josephus equates this where all of these things come together (with striking
Macedonian month with Iyyar (May-June). similarities in language) is at 2.601, where Josephus
2011
Diodorus (25.19.1) uses the cognate superlative describes his own stratagem of feigning repentance. See
adjective in a tragic passage of his history, but Jose- notes there.
2019
phus appears to be the first to use the compound verb One fifth of the 25 occurrences of this verb
ὑπερπαθέω. It contributes to the tragic tone of his work (ἐρεθίζω) in Josephus are in the latter half of War 2
(see Introduction, 1.9-12, and the notes to “feelings,” (also 2.321, 350, 414, 493), helping to build the sense
“mourn over,” and “calamities” at 1.9); he has it 3 times of aggravation, provocation, and indignation leading up
(also 6.124; Ant. 7.46). to war.
2012 2020
See the note to this phrase at 2.170. This is for- This phrase recalls the appeal that the élite have
mulaic language in War 2 for the spontaneous popular just made, successfully, in their efforts to calm the
reaction to Roman malfeasance. mob (2.316). Josephus’ repetition of it a few sentences
2013
See the note at 2.305. later, after Florus has altered the conditions, highlights
2014
Literally, “outside the norm” (ἐξαίσιος); so the extraordinary lengths to which the élite are going
“enormous, weird, extraordinary, gigantic, inauspicious, to adapt as needed. For the language, see the note to
monstrous, grotesque.” All 5 occurrences of this dra- “irremediable suffering,” a prominent theme in bk. 2,
matic adjective in Josephus are in War 2-6; cf. 5.75 for at 2.233.
2021
a “terrific yell,” 6.60 for an “enormous boulder.” Or “shame before” (as at 2.325). See the note at
2015
Although this is the only occurrence of ἀνοδύροµαι 2.317.
2022
in Josephus, it is part of the extensive tragic lexicon in See the note to this phrase at 2.15, and note its
War connected with lamentation, mourning, wailing, and recurrence at 2.333.
2023
dirge. See the note to “mourn over” at 1.9. A characteristic verb in War 2; see the note at
2016
See the note at 2.239. 2.259 and also 2.283 (of Florus).
2017 2024
See the note at 2.243—a standard companion Chief priests and notables form a standard pair
term, among others, to “powerful [men].” in War 2 (only: 2.240, 243, 301, 322, 410, 411), along
2018
This tearing of clothes (τὰς ἐσθῆτας περιρρήγνυµι) with other similar and overlapping pairs. See the note to
was a traditional gesture of extreme grief, in many Medi- “powerful [men]” at 2.239, and in general to 2.243.
2025
terranean and Near-Eastern cultures (Gen 37:29; 41:14; This is a remarkable notice. In addition to the
Josh 7:6; 11:35; 2 Sam 1:2; 3:31; Ant. 6.357; 7.1, 40; cohort routinely stationed in Jerusalem (see the notes to
9.67; 10.59; 11.221; 18.78; Suetonius, Nero 42), though “Sebastenes” at 2.52 and to “cohort” at 2.224), Florus
high priests were forbidden to rip their clothes (Lev has brought with him a sizeable force of both cavalry and
252 book two

he [Florus] sent ahead and made it clear to the centurions of the cohorts2026 to pass the
word to those under them that they were not to greet the Judeans in return, and if the latter
should so much as utter [a syllable] against him, they were to make use of their weapons.
320 And the chief priests, after gathering the rabble into the temple, began making the
appeal that they go out to meet the Romans and welcome the cohorts, before irremedi-
able suffering2027 [should occur]. The factious [element]2028 would not comply with these
[men], and on account of those who had been destroyed the mob were inclining towards
the bolder ones.2029
(15.4) 321 Then indeed every priest and every servant of God,2030 after bringing out the
holy vessels and donning the regalia2031 in which it was their custom to perform the ser-
vices,2032 and also the cithara-players2033 and the [choral] singers with their instruments,2034
fell prostrate and began supplicating2035 [them] to protect the sacred regalia2036 for them,
and not to goad2037 the Romans into plunder of the divine treasures.2038 322 One could then

infantry—plausibly, then, a cohort plus Judea’s one aux- (War 2.321; 5.228, 231; Ant. 13.55; 20.218), as also the
iliary cavalry wing (2.296). With the arrival of 2 more more frequent cognate noun.
cohorts in Jerusalem, the usual situation of 5 units based 2033
The cithara was a precursor of the zither (from
around Caesarea (and Sebaste) and 1 in Jerusalem will which the latter as well as “guitar” take their names), an
be reversed. Eventually (2.332), Florus will return to instrument using 8 to 11 taut strings. From representa-
the norm by leaving 1 cohort and taking the rest back tions on Greek vases and literary descriptions, it seems
to Caesarea. to have been partly open (like a lyre) and partly backed
2026
Cf. 3.86-88, on the chain of command for orders with a box for resonance (like a zither) at the lower end,
(there in the legion). As that passage shows, the cen- from which two decorative arms emerged to support the
turion (normally in charge of 80 men) was the officer head or yoke at the top. The strings were fastened to this
to whom the private soldier looked for direction. With yoke and at the bottom end of the instrument.
2 cohorts approaching (2.318), the orders would go to 2034
These musicians are also Levites (see note to “ser-
perhaps 12 centurions. vant of God” in this section): see Ant. 8.94, 176; 9.11,
2027
See the note to this phrase, which contributes the 269. For ancient music and instruments in general, see
tragic environment of War 2, at 2.233 (and note recent
West 1992; for those kept and used in the temple, see the
use of the same adjective at 2.316).
2028
passages above and Ant. 7.305-6. That Josephus distin-
See the note at 2.91.
2029 guishes the musicians from the “servants of God” who
See the notes at 2.238, 267.
2030 accompany the priests (also Levites) indicates a class
From the context it is clear that Levites are meant.
distinction within the tribe of Levi, the singers constitut-
That Josephus does not name them perhaps reflects his
ing a lower order from the temple attendants. See Ezra
typical sensitivity to his Roman audience’s understand-
2:41-42; 7:7; 10:24; Neh 10:28 and Feldman, n. b to
ing (see Introduction). He does not mention the group
in War , and when he does name them in Antiquities he Ant. 20.218 in LCL.
2035
explains immediately who they are (3.258, 287-90; 4.15, The doubly compounded Greek καταντιβολέω,
19, 67; 20.216). That the 4th-century Latin translator of which occurs a remarkable 8 times in War 1-5 (though
Josephus opts to replace this phrase with leuitae reflects nowhere else in Josephus), may be Josephus’ coinage.
his very different, Christian audience. On the Levites in It is unattested in literature before him and appears
Josephus’ time, see Ant. 3.287-90; 4.67, 205, 214 [note after him only in the recherché list of words by Iulius
use of the same term as here: ὑπηρέτης]; 9.155 along Pollux (Onom. 1.26; 3.70) in the 2nd cent. CE, before
with notes ad loc. by Feldman and Begg in BJP 3 and Eusebius in the 4th century and a number of Byzan-
5. tine appearances. It may be spun from the adjective
2031
For this use of κόσµος as the “adornment, finery” καταντιβολεῖτον, attested in a fragment of Aristophanes
of the priests, see also 6.391; Ant. 3.178; 18.90. But Jose- (625-26 [Kock]).
2036
phus will characteristically use the word soon (2.325) in In context, τὸν ἱερὸν κόσµον appears to mean
a different and more standard sense (“decorum”). what has just been mentioned (clothes, instruments, etc.),
2032
Although the verb λειτουργέω can be used of metonymically for the whole temple service, which will
performing any public services, Josephus almost always be destroyed if the nation rebels.
2037
uses it (except War 1.488) of the priests’ temple duties See the note at 2.316.
book two 253

see the chief priests themselves heaping dust on their head[s],2039 their chests bare—their
clothes having been ripped.2040 They were begging each of the notables by name,2041 and
the rabble in common, that they not, by [the] slightest error of judgment,2042 hand over
their homeland to those who were yearning to destroy it.2043 323 For, [they asked], what
benefit would this greeting from the Judeans bring to the soldiers,2044 on the one hand,
or, on the other hand, how would not going out there now [bring] them some redress2045

2038 2041
This is strong foreshadowing. The sacred treasures This differential treatment of the élite and the gen-
of the temple (κεµηλία) are not to be confused with the eral mob, which adds vividness to the story, was also
treasury (θησαυρός), with its largely cash holdings— shown by Petronius (2.199). For bk. 2’s pairing of chief
even though it also contained objects of value deposited priests and notables (here unusually distinguished) see
by individuals and families (6.282). These are rather the 2.240, 243, 301, 318, 410, 411 and notes.
2042
distinctive sacred objects of Jerusalem’s temple itself This is the common metaphorical sense of [δι᾿
(famously: the golden table and lampstand [menorah], ἐλαχίστης] πληµµελείας; the rarely used literal mean-
along with other exotic and very costly items). By ing is a “false note” in music (cf. LSJ, s.v.)—perhaps
Josephus’ time of writing, as his Roman audience well a clever choice of words in the context of musicians.
knows, these have have been exhibited in the Flavian The error of judgment in this case would presumably
triumph as spoils of war; many of them now reside in involve acting from emotion or impulse rather than from
Vespasian’s Temple of Peace (7.161-62). In Josephus’ a consideration of what was beneficial for the nation.
Rome, then, these treasures were the visible symbol By casting the various options as matters of judgment
of Judea’s capture, also depicted in brilliant detail on separated by small increments, as on a musical scale
the arch honoring Titus’ life or apotheosis (the restored (albeit with widely varying consequences), Josephus
“Arch of Titus” visible today), and he reveals a keen again holds back from simple moral verdicts.
2043
sensitivity to their fate. The rhetorical questions posed by the leaders
reveal their (and so the author’s) sensitivity to the peo-
After anticipating their capture already in the pro-
ple’s concerns for honor, right, and self-respect. Their
logue (1.28), he observes Pompey’s refusal to touch them
brief address must be a tour de force, since they as
when he captured the city in 63 BCE (1.153). Describing
statesmen are driven by consequences: they know that
the final days before Jerusalem’s fall in 70 CE, however,
confronting the Romans, or not cooperating with them,
he will detail a number of these objects (large, solid-
will result in the destruction of the city, which must not
gold tables, bowls, platters, and candelabra; the high
be permitted to happen. They must now try to reach their
priest’s finery; costly purple, scarlet, and spices) as items
audience, however, on grounds of right and justice.
handed over by some of the last of Jerusalem’s desert- 2044
Natural objections of the people to greeting the
ers—a priest and the temple treasurer (6.387-91) and soldiers would be: (a) that it would be obsequious to
will describe the temple’s main treasures being paraded give honor to (in effect) enemy soldiers, and (b) that
in the triumph (7.148-52). they have been severely injured and wronged by these
2039
Greek καταµωµένους . . . τὴν κεφαλήν κόνει. people, and so it would be wrong to offer them saluta-
Although sprinkling ashes or dust on the head is part of tions. The statesmen try to reassure the people first that
the biblical symbolism of grief (see the note to “clothes” greeting the soldiers in the customary way will not help
at 2.316; also LXX Job 2:12; Esther 4:1; Jer 6:26; 2 their enemies—so, there is nothing to lose. (Of course,
Macc 10:25), the verb καταµάω (“heap”) is extremely one could imagine a retort that it would indeed give the
rare. Its only attestation before Josephus, outside of soldiers an unmerited sense of power.) This pre-emp-
obscure fragments, is in Homer (Il. 24.163-5), where it tive analysis and separation of possible objections and
describes Priam’s condition when Iris arrives in Troy to motives among the audience by statesmen anticipates
deliver a message: “And much dung was around both Agrippa’s great speech below (e.g., 2.345-58, esp. 350).
head and neck of the old man; thus he, wallowing in As often, Josephus writes with ironic detachment: he
it, heaped it on with his own hands.” It is possible that makes the statesmen’s goals sound worthy, though he
Josephus alludes to this Greek-canonical scene, which knows that they are mistaken about the outcome of this
would be known to his literate audience. affair (2.325-26).
2040 2045
That is, in 2.316: the tearing of clothes and the Or “repair.” Josephus uses διόρθωσις only 5
sprinkling of dust on the head go together as symbols of times in War , 3 of these in the latter half of bk. 2 (also
grief (see note there). 2.354, 449).
254 book two

for the things that had happened?2046 324 But if indeed they should welcome those who
had approached, as was the custom,2047 the occasion2048 for war would be cut away from
Florus: they would gain their homeland and [the advantage of] suffering nothing more.2049
And besides, it would show a dreadful lack of control2050 to comply with the few seditious
ones, when they, being a populace of such strength, ought to be compelling those [men]
also to share in their own good sense.2051
Auxiliary (15.5) 325 Soothing2052 the mob with these [words], at the same time they also repulsed
soldiers attack some of the insurgents2053 with threats, others with shame.2054 Then, leading [them] out
welcoming mob
with silence and also decorum2055 they went to meet the soldiers, and when they had
come nearby they offered greetings; but when [the soldiers] did not respond at all, the
insurgents began shouting against Florus. 326 This was the agreed signal2056 that had been
given against them.2057 So immediately the soldiers surrounded them and began beating
them with sticks;2058 the cavalry chased after any who had fled and trampled them. Many
fell as a result of being struck by the Romans, but more as a result of suffering violence
from one another.2059
327 Now there was a dreadful pushing around the gates.2060 With each one eager to go
first, the rush became slower for all, and the destruction of those who had been thrown
down was dreadful. Being choked and broken by a mob of those stepping on top of them,

2046
That is: granted the injuries endured by the peo- συνευγνωµονέω. If that is the correct reading, he uses
ple, it will not help them to make things right by refusing it only here and it is unattested otherwise except in (4th-
to greet the soldiers. Again, a reasonable objection might cent.) ps.-Athanasius—so rare that it lacks an entry in
be that refusing to give the soldiers what they expect LSJ. Still, it is the verb I translate here as “the more dif-
would be a significant assertion of the national dignity, ficult reading.” MSS PAL have συνευδαιµονεῖν (“share
a small but clear statement. Josephus leaves open the in their own well-being”), MSS VR µὴ συγγνωµονεῖν
possibility that the leaders fully realize this, but must try (“not agree with them”).
2052
to overcome such reasoning in order to repair relations Josephus uses the verb µειλίσσω 4 times, but only
with the governor. in War 1-3 (1.168, 508; 3.7).
2047 2053
In this case it was not internal Judean custom, but See the note to this key term at 1.10.
2054
the custom of all nations under Roman rule, that subject See the note to “respect” at 2.314. Josephus re-
populations would leave the city walls to welcome impe- uses the same word, characteristically, with different
rial soldiers. nuances.
2048 2055
The noun ἀφορµή is usefully multivalent: it can Josephus re-uses a term from 2.321 (κόσµος) in a
mean simply “impulse, stimulus” or “occasion,” in the different sense; see the note to “regalia” there.
2056
sense of what actually initiated something, or it can take See the note at 2.174 (and note re-use at 2.176).
the secondary sense of what a sought-for point of depar- This word (σύνθηµα) is one of the many links between
ture, thus a pretext. The ambiguity is exploited by Jose- this passage and the programmatic Pilate episodes.
2057
phus at 1.30, for example. See also the note at 2.41. So 2.319.
2049 2058
A tragically ironic hope, since author and audi- Auxiliary soldiers surrounding the Judeans and
ence well know that the leaders’ hope was vain (though beating them with sticks is another item that recalls the
not for that reason necessarily wrong-headed in the cir- second Pilate episode (2.176). It also anticipates the fac-
cumstances). tional fighting at 5.102.
2050 2059
In Josephus ἀκρασία usually implies a lack of This construction recalls, in both diction and syn-
self-control; hence “excess, wantonness, surfeit.” The tax, the outcome of the second Pilate episode (2.177).
context here, however, makes possible the more general Josephus evidently uses such literary resonances to unify
sense of “weakness, inability to exert one’s power”—over these vignettes.
2060
the few trouble-makers. Presumably the gates of the city, given that
2051
According to MS M (and a marginal note in L), the people had left the city to greet the arriving sol-
which is the reading printed by Niese and followed by diers (2.320, 324-25). Nevertheless, the scene recalls
Thackeray in LCL, M-B, Vitucci and Pelletier, Jose- an episode set at the crammed temple exits, involving
phus uses the infinitive of an extremely rare verb: Cumanus’ troops (2.227).
book two 255

they disappeared; no one was even left recognizable to their own [family] for burial.
328 Soldiers fell upon those they caught up with, beating them without restraint,2061 and
they kept pushing the mob back through what was called Betheza,2062 using force to pass
through and take control of the temple as well as the Antonia.2063 Florus, also being intent
on2064 [these places], led those [soldiers] who were with him out of the royal palace,2065
and was struggling to get to the fortress.2066
329 At any rate, he certainly failed in his offensive,2067 for the populace, having been
turned around opposite2068 [him], blocked his charge, and standing at intervals on the
roofs2069 they kept throwing [things]2070 at the Romans. Being worn out2071 after a long
struggle by the projectiles2072 from above, and having become too weak to cut through2073

2061
This (ἀνέδην) is another characteristic term in John 5:2, explaining Greek –σδ-) is (‫“( חסד)א‬grace,
War , which hosts 12 of its 13 occurrences in Josephus mercy”); another, favoring Josephus’ later -ζεθα, is
(also Apion 2.273). Before Josephus the word has slight (‫“( זית)א‬olives/olive oil”). Whereas Josephus describes
classical attestation: the heaviest users are Plato (4), the area as a hill with suburbs around, John gives this
Polybius (5), Diodorus (8), Strabo, and Philo (4 each). name to a large pool with 5 colonnades.
His contemporary, Plutarch, also uses it relatively fre- 2063
As the sequel clarifies (2.330-31), the emphasis
quently (16 times) and it remains popular in the 2nd cent. is here on the temple, which the soldiers will dominate
CE. Perhaps it was becoming newly fashionable. once they reach the fortress Antonia on its NW corner.
2062
Thus, the auxiliaries approach the city from its From its towering position, steps led down from the
N gate, first pushing through the extended suburb just Antonia to the broad roofs of the N and W temple colon-
inside the outer wall, N of the fortress Antonia. When nades, from which the auxiliary cohort could dominate
Josephus later describes the city in detail (5.149-51, all movement on the temple mount some 4 stories below
246), to set the stage for the Flavian siege, he will care- them; see note to “colonnade” at 2.224 and the descrip-
fully explain that Bezetha (see below for the form), also tion at 5.243-45.
called New City, was the name of a hill around which a 2064
This is one of a number of terms (ἐφίηµι) that
new suburb of the city had developed, outside the origi- Josephus re-uses in brief space here (2.331).
nal walls and opposite the fortress Antonia, and which 2065
See 2.301: Florus has made the Herodian palace
Agrippa I began to enclose in a sturdy new wall (already his base while in Jerusalem.
mentioned at 2.218-19 above); he aborted the project (or 2066
See “Antonia” in the previous sentence.
died leaving it unfinished), though it was completed with 2067
Or “campaign.” Although this is the first occur-
less impressive solidity when war broke out. rence of ἐπιβολή in bk. 2, it reappears quickly at 2.333,
With the qualifier “what was called,” Josephus 361. Such rapid re-use is characteristic of Josephus (see
acknowledges that he does not expect his audience to Introduction).
know this foreign name, but also that he will not take 2068
The same phrase (ἄντικρυς ἐπιστραφείς) appears
time to explain it. Similarly, in recounting Cestius Gal- at 5.83.
lus’ campaign at 2.530 he will say only that the legate, 2069
Josephus does not explain whether these are the
once inside the city, set fire to Betheza, “also styled the roofs of houses or public buildings, of which there were
New City, and the place called the Timber Market.” In a number in the area around Antonia. In the E Mediter-
both places Niese prints the form indicated here, in this ranean, rooftops were usually accessible flat surfaces,
passage following MS P (similar to MS A: Bethaza), fully part of the accommodation: they might be used for
presumably as the “more difficult reading,” since MSS cooler sleeping areas or for meals.
MVRC have a form of Bezetha (followed by Thackeray 2070
Latin supplies saxis (stones, rocks) here. Although
in LCL, M-B, and Pelletier), L Bethzetha (likely influ- that is not an unreasonable guess, since the Jerusalem
enced by John 5:2: Bethzatha, traditionally Bethesda) and area yields plenty of rock, especially perhaps with recent
Latin Bezeta. The confusion is easy enough to explain construction in the New City area, the noun that Jose-
in principle: the word began with Hebrew ‫“( בית‬house phus will use (“projectiles” below) is more general.
of ”). The final th could be dropped in Greek to high- 2071
See the note to this phrase at 2.49.
light the second part of the name, or it could be retained 2072
Greek βέλη might suggest first of all “arrows,
as here. The second part of the Semitic name remains darts, or javelins,” though it can refer to any sort of
uncertain: one proposal (drawn from MS variants at throwable object.
256 book two

the mob that had blocked up the alleyways, they began withdrawing into their camp at
the royal palace.2074
Florus (15.6) 330 The insurgents,2075 worried that Florus might attack again and take control
checked, leaves of the temple2076 through the Antonia,2077 immediately climbed up on the colonnades2078 of
Jerusalem
the temple that connected with the Antonia and cut through [them].2079 331 This chilled
Florus’ greed;2080 for since he was intent on2081 the treasuries of God2082 and for that reason
was longing to enter the Antonia,2083 when the colonnades were torn off2084 his charge
was thwarted. So he summoned both the chief priests and the council,2085 and told them

2073
Josephus makes a play on διακόπτω in this sen- diately below and Agrippa’s speech at 2.403, describing
tence and the next (its only 2 appearances in War 2): the same incident Josephus will use verbs meaning “lop
Whereas the soldiers were unable to cut through the off, sever, break off ” (ἀπορρήγνυµι, ἀποκόπτω); (c) Flo-
citizens opposing them, the Judeans were easily able rus is immediately convinced by this action that he has
to cut through the rock of the monumental colonnades no chance of using the colonnades to reach the temple,
(2.330)—and prevent the auxiliaries’ use of their custom- which might suggest more extensive damage than merely
ary observation platform. cutting up pieces of the roof (2.49; 6.232-35); and (d) in
2074
See 2.301 and the note to “palace” at 2.328. Agrippa’s speech, the remedy is described as “re-attach-
2075
See the note to this key term at 1.10. ing” (συνάπτω πάλιν), and “rebuilding, reconstruction”
2076
“Attack again”: the explicit antecedent was briefly (δόµησις, 2.403, 404, 405). Although the columns were
mentioned at 2.328, where Florus attempted in vain to apparently not marble, as Josephus claims (5.190), they
get his hands on temple funds but was blocked by the might have given that appearance; in any case, they must
mob. The fear that he would try it again is justified in the have been massive. At Ant. 15.413 he will say of the
narrative by characterizations of Florus’ all-consuming Royal Colonnade (along the S edge of the temple mount)
greed, and his earlier (remote) extraction of 17 talents that it would take 3 men to reach around a column and
(2.278-79, 293). join hands: so perhaps 15 ft. (4.6 m) in circumference,
2077
See 2.328 and the note to “Antonia” there: the a little less than 5 ft. in diameter. Although the columns
governor’s soldiers dominated the temple precincts by near the Antonia were perhaps not as thick, the rebel-
exiting the fortress on to the roof of the N and W col- lious action of breaking them off was clearly no trivial
onnades. matter.
2080
2078 Florus’ greed has dominated his term in office; it
See the note at 2.48.
2079 was grandly introduced at 2.279. Note here its associa-
Whatever this action involved (below), it was a
tion with “heat”—therefore, with ungoverned passions
daring move and highly consequential in the narrative:
(like Antiochus in 1.32-36, the first temple-plunderer in
getting on top of the 12.5 m. (40-ft.) columns and some-
the narrative).
how breaking them. Agrippa will cite it (along with the 2081
See the note at 2.328.
withholding of tribute) as an act of war, which must be 2082
See the note to this phrase in the singular at 2.50;
undone immediately if the Judeans are to avoid open the temple treasuries of Jerusalem are in view. Greco-
conflict with Rome (2.403). The people will briefly Roman temples housed treasuries as well, and these were
be persuaded and begin rebuilding the colonnades often eyed by tyrants. See the note to “plundered” at
(κατήρξαντο τῆς τῶν στοῶν δοµήσεως, 2.405)—evi- 2.50.
dently a major task. 2083
See the note in the previous sentence.
What exactly did they do to the colonnades? The verb 2084
See “cut through [them]” and its note in the previ-
“cut through” seems to be chosen first for the contrast ous sentence. Here Josephus re-uses the verb from 3.283
with its use in the preceding sentence. The most likely (ἀπορρήγνυμι), now in a literal sense.
meanings are cutting through a horizontal structure (i.e., 2085
Josephus uses βουλή for the council of any Greek
the cedar-panel roof on which the auxiliaries walked: city and even as an alternative term for the Roman Sen-
5.190-92, 243-45) or a vertical one (i.e., somehow cut- ate (see the note at 2.211). Although Jerusalem did not at
ting off sections of the massive columns themselves). In this time have all the institutions of a Greek polis (gym-
spite of the incredible amount of labor that this would nasium, ephebate, games, statues, dramatic contexts with
presumably have involved, the narrative evidence appears sacrifices; contrast coastal Caesarea), the basic structure
to support the latter: (a) normally, and much more eas- of internal governance was close enough that its aristo-
ily, the cedar roof would be burned (2.49; 6.165-66, cratic deliberative body could be called by the standard
177-81, 191; cf. Ant. 17.261); (b) in both 2.331 imme- term. Plainly Josephus intends the group of councilors,
book two 257

that whereas he himself was departing from the city, he would leave behind for them
as much of a garrison2086 as they thought suitable. 332 And they promised everything,
about security and not fomenting revolution in the future,2087 if he would leave one co-
hort2088 for them—but not the one that had fought,2089 for the mob harbored animosity2090
toward this one because of what they had suffered. So, having exchanged the cohort2091

2088
though he can also use βουλή to mean the place where “One cohort” (μίαν . . . σπεῖραν) is the leaders’
the council met, near the xystus (5.145; cf. note at 2.344). response to Florus’ offer (2.331): he would leave what-
Since the chief priests and powerful men were them- ever size of garrison political class chose; they request
selves the core of the council’s membership (see 2.239 a return to the status quo ante of one cohort (cf. 2.224;
[note to “powerful”] and 243), the “and” is more epex- 5.444), excluding only the most hated unit from garrison
egetical than additional, as also at 2.336. Cf. the NT— duty. This language implies, however, that the cohorts
Mark 14:55; 15:1; Matt 26:59; Luke 22:66—though the were interchangeable in terms of size (they want any one
council is there called τὸ συνέδριον. except that one), which militates against the inference
It is curious that War consistently uses the latter term, from the existence of a tribune that the Jerusalem cohort
without article, to indicate an ad hoc meeting (called by was of double strength (see note to “cohort” at 2.224).
2089
a king or other ruling figure): see the note to “council” This sentence and the next will make it clear that
at 2.25. The council must have been widely known as a single cohort was held responsible for the fighting,
τὸ συνέδριον, however, to account for NT usage and though it is unclear which one. Josephus has described
the Aramaic loan-word ‫“( סנהדרין‬Sanhedrin”) in rab- two scenes of horrific fighting. The first (2.305-10),
binic literature. Because synedrion does not normally apparently more severe, involved the soldiers that Florus
refer to a standing council in Josephus, some scholars brought with him from Sebaste (2.296)—both infantry
have doubted the existence of a standing body. Although and cavalry. The more recent conflict (3.326-8), and the
they have rightly challenged the old notion of a kind of more natural antecedent for this demand, seems to have
representative parliament comprising different parties involved the two supplementary cohorts recently arrived
(Goodman 1987: 113-18; Sanders 1992: 472-81), it is (2.318). See also the note to “exchanged the cohort” at
clear throughout Josephus that Jerusalem had something 2.332.
2090
recognizable as a standing council with regular meetings Although this phrase comprising verb and adverb
and a meeting place. In Antiquities (4.186, 218, 220, (ἀπεχθῶς + ἔχω) is idiomatic Greek, it is slightly attested
222, 255-56; 4.324-25; 5.15, 23, etc.) Josephus will fre- in other literature (Aesop, Fab. 97.3; Demosthenes, Pac.
quently call the governing body of in Judea, led by the 18; 3 Macc. 5.3; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 11.59.3; Chion,
high priest, ἡ γερουσία; in Life (65, 72, 190, 254, 267, Ep. 16.2); Josephus uses it more routinely (8 times): also
309, 341, 393; cf. Ant. 6.17), the war-time governing 7.56; Ant. 2.12; 13.35, 85; 20.162; Life 375, 384.
2091
coalition of the entire nation, still led by chief priests, is Josephus’ language seems to imply that Florus
called τὸ κοινὸν [τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν], like provincial already has a cohort in place, but because it is consid-
councils elsewhere. Cf. McLaren 1991: 211-25; Mason ered unacceptable by the Judeans in view of its role in
1995: 160, 165-77; BJP 9, note to “general assembly” the conflicts (see the note to “fought” in this section),
at § 65. he exchanges it (ἀλλάσσω). Yet in the preceding narra-
2086
Greek ὅσην ἂν ἀξιώσωσιν implies that the size of tive, he has just offered to leave a cohort of the Judean
the garrison, which had always been a cohort (perhaps of leaders’ choosing; now that they have expressed their
double strength; see the note to “cohort” at 2.224), was preference, it is puzzling that he should need to exchange
now the choice of the Judean leaders—given the severe units.
strain between the auxiliaries and the populace. Florus The best solution may be that Josephus misleads by
is, for the moment, chastened and reverting (ostensibly) narrative compression. If there was a cohort already
to his proper role of facilitating collaboration with the based in Jerusalem, which would normally be rotated
local élite. out after Passover anyway (cf. 2.169-74 and note to
2087
This is another example of Josephus’ ironic detach- “standards” at 2.169 and 2.224 with note to “cohort”),
ment. Notwithstanding his respect for his own élite class, perhaps the exchange of cohorts is not direcly related
he presents them as promising what they cannot in fact to the conflict just concluded. That is: knowing that he
deliver (“everything” that a reasonable governor should needs to change the cohort anyway, but recognizing the
want to hear—about peace and security) as they speed extreme hostility of the populace to the auxiliaries after
him on his way. recent events, Florus invites them to choose the size and
258 book two

as they thought suitable, with the balance of the force2092 he returned to Caesarea.2093

Florus’ false (16.1) 333 Contriving a different kind of offensive2094 for war, he [Florus] sent a let-
allegation to ter to Cestius2095 falsely alleging a rebellion of Judeans:2096 he fastened on2097 them the
Cestius
beginning2098 of the fighting, saying that they themselves had committed what they had
suffered.2099 To be sure, the leaders of Hierosolyma2100 were not silent: they and also Ber-
nice2101 wrote to Cestius about what Florus had done illegally2102 against the city. 334 After

type of unit—from among the cohorts that have recently ignorant fellow who mistakes beginnings for true causes,
entered the city (apparently at least 3 cohorts and one like those criticized by Polybius (22.18.6-11), an over-
cavalry wing). The leaders gratefully specify 1 cohort as sight that allows him to ignore his own role; more likely
optimal, as long as it is not the one held most responsible he has Florus posturing as a governor keen to punish
by the mob. So Florus makes the scheduled exchange perceived trouble-makers, irrespective of true causes.
2099
and leaves with the rest. This is the first appearance in Josephus of this
2092
At least 4 units (3 auxiliary cohorts and a cavalry clever contrast (δράω + πάσχω), which he uses often
wing), equivalent to the number that recently entered in the sequel: 3.106, 207, 346; 4.185, 221; 5.256, 316;
Jerusalem (2.296, 318), but with the replaced Jerusa- 7.273, 396; Ant. 2.107; 3.22; 12.433; 13.199; 14.142;
lem cohort. Although some units came with Florus from 15.283; 16.37, 99, 234, 390; 20.258; Life 357; Apion
Sebaste (2.196), they will all return to Roman headquar- 2.131. The collocation has wide attestation in classical
ters in Caesarea for now. authors, particularly the tragedians, since a common
2093
The governor’s headquarters; see the note at element of drama (δρᾶμα derives from δράω) is the
2.16. reciprocity or “poetic justice” connected with “doing”
2094
This is the 2nd of 3 occurrences of the noun ἐπι- and “suffering” ([Seven Sages], Sent. 216; [Aesop],
βολή in bk. 2, all coming in close proximity; see note Fab. 246; Aeschylus, Agam. 533; Choeph. 313, 1010;
at 2.329. Thucydides 1.78.3; 3.38.1; 4.15.2; 6.35.1; 7.71.7, 77.4;
2095 Euripides, Med. 289, 693; Heracl. 176; Hipp. 598; Andr.
The governor (legatus Augusti pro praetore) of
438; Hec. 253; Suppl. 1179; Troi. 792-93; Ion. 342-43,
Syria, C. Cestius Gallus. See the note at 2.280, also to
1248; Phoen. 480; Or. 1455-56; Rhes. 483, 742-43;
“Cestius” at 1.20. We last saw him (at 2.282) returing
Sophocles, Elec. 389-90; Ant. 235-36; Phil. 315-16;
to Antioch after a Passover visit to Jerusalem, having
Oed. col. 267. 953; Aristophanes, Vesp. 385, 1256-57;
promised to restrain Gessius Florus. During that visit,
Thesm. 519; Plut. 87-88; Xenophon, Hell. 4.5.7; Anab.
Florus ridiculed the Judeans’ accusations before his dis-
5.1.15; Isocrates, Loch. 2; Plato, Leg. 642e, 834a, 865e,
tinguished senatorial guest and, after escorting him out 872e, 953b). The phrase highlights the tragic element of
of the province, began to plot the beginnings of a war War, reinforced in the following passages by repeated
that would cover up his enormities. This letter is presum- use of lamentation language. The short-hand nature of
ably the beginning of that campaign. the expression is obvious from the fact that the Judeans
2096
The same phrase (Ἰουδαίων ἀπόστασις) has could not actually have done most of what Josephus has
occurred at 2.39. See note to “rebellion” there. described Florus as doing: plunder, torture, despoiling
2097
Or “pinned on them.” Josephus uses metaphori- cities, accepting bribes (2.277-78).
cally a verb that he normally employs in a literal sense, 2100
Possibly “magistrates of Hierosolyma.” This is the
especially in relation to the fitting of a diadem on one’s second occurrence of the phrase οἱ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων
head: 1.70, 393; 2.27, 57, 62; Ant. 11.54, 203; 12.389; ἄρχοντες in Josephus, after 2.237 a few sentences earlier,
13.113; 144, 367; 17.202, 273, 280; 18.237; 20.32, 65, and it will not appear again—illustrating his tendency to
241. re-use terms in a short space and then drop them (see
2098
It may be significant that Florus blames the Introduction). On the possible range of meanings, see
Judeans not for the causes (αἰτίαι) of the conflict, but the note to “magistrates” at 2.216, and to “leaders [of
only for its beginning (ἀρχή): they started it! For this Hierosolyma]” at 2.234, 237.
2101
crucial Polybian distinction, see the note to “justifica- The sister of Agrippa II (cf. 2.217 and note) has
tion” at 2.285. This fits with the narrator’s perspective consistently acted, even at the peril of her own life, to pro-
that it was Florus’ deliberate intention to provoke trouble tect the Judeans from Florus’ depradations (2.310-14).
2102
(as in the opening of this section; cf. 2.277-83); he was This phrase recalls its last occurrence (2.317),
the real cause. Still, it is odd that Josephus should not where it was used to summarize the grievances of the
have this character claim that the causes were on the people against Florus for his many misdeeds to that
Judean side. Perhaps he wishes to present Florus as an point. See also the note at 2.15.
book two 259

reading the [reports] from both,2103 he [Cestius] took counsel with his commanders.2104
Whereas to them it seemed best that Cestius himself should go back2105 with an army,
either to exact retribution for the rebellion,2106 if it had happened, or to support any Judeans
who were more steadfast and persevering,2107 to him [it seemed best] to send out from2108
his companions2109 the one who would investigate the circumstances and credibly2110 report
back the intentions of the Judeans.2111
335 So indeed2112 he sent* one of the tribunes,2113 Neapolitanus:2114 at Iamneia he fell Neopolitanus
sent to
Jerusalem, joins
Agrippa II

2103
Although this could refer to the letters from the Cestius passes over even his legionary legates to choose
Judean leaders and Berenice, the emphatic position of the one person he thinks will give him a trustworthy
“both” in the sentence implies that Cestius was honor- assessment. Tellingly, the sequel shows Neapolitanus to
able enough to hear both Florus and his distinguished be considerate and solicitous: going out of his way to
Judean accusers. He has already, according to Josephus, meet up with King Agrippa, presenting himself without
heard the complaints of some 3 million Judeans against intimidation so as to elicit frank speech, and praying
this procurator and given the impression that he would respectfully before departing Jerusalem (2.340-41). Jose-
provide relief (2.280-81). phus implicitly honors the distinguished legate for his
2104
As the sequel shows, this term includes at least care to learn the real situation and his refusal to indulge
the legates, camp prefects, and tribunes of his 4 legions. his senior officers’ anti-Judean reflexes.
2109
After the major redistributions of the eastern legions Like “friends” (see note at 2.4), ἑταῖροι could be
necessitated by Corbulo’s campaigns, Syria was left simply “comrades, colleagues” on a truly personal level
with legions III Gallica, IV Scythica, VI Ferrata, and or quasi-official figures in the rentinue of a ruler (most
XII Fuliminata (Parker 1992: 138). The available leg- famously in the early Macedonian court: an élite cav-
ates, camp prefects, and tribunes (32 in total), along alry unit who served also as military advisers). Josephus
with other senior members of the entourage, might have almost always uses the term of kings, governors, and
amounted to between 20 and 30. generals, suggesting the more formal sense: a member of
2105
“Go back,” given Cestius’ previous visit (2.280- the senior advisory group or council. This is confirmed
82); or possibly “go up” (ἀναβαίνω) in keeping with by the identity of the person in question here, a military
standard language for the trip to Jerusalem (see the note tribune.
2110
to “going up” at 2.232). The adverb πιστῶς can mean both “in a faith-
2106
See the note to this word at 2.39. ful, loyal way” and “in a credible, trustworthy, believ-
2107
I.e., remaining loyal to Rome, according to the able way.” Both meanings are operative here, though
scenario portrayed in Florus’ letter of substantial anti- the emphasis on prior investigation tends to emphasize
Roman activity by the Judeans. The absence of a defi- the latter.
2111
nite article with the participle may serve to highlight The commanders assume that the Judeans are in
the uncertainty whether there were indeed any such revolt, or some of them are; in response, either the entire
Judeans. rebellion needs to be put down or those remaining loyal
2108
Most MSS (AMLVRC) have τινα at this point, to Rome need military support against rebel factions.
matching the next sentence (“one of his tribunes”). Most They have thus been more strongly influenced than Ces-
modern editors follow Niese in omitting the word from tius by Florus’ letter. He will send a trusted emissary to
the Greek, but they translate as if it were present: “to find out the facts, and that emissary will report on the
send out one of his companions, who would investigate willingness of the populace to accommodate all Romans
. . . .” But its absence from P, one of the best MSS, but Florus (2.340-41).
2112
prompts us to consider seriously the “more difficult MSS PAML have only δέ; VRC have οὖν δέ,
reading” that remains without it. The standard reading Latin ergo. This translation assumes the consequential
suggests that Cestius’ companions were all competent; connective.
2113
he simply chose one for reasons unknown. The reading For “tribune” see the notes at 2.11 and 244,
chosen here, however, implies that Cestius particularly which however concern officers of allied and auxiliary
trusted Neapolitanus to give a fair report based on inde- forces. In the early empire the governor of a province,
pendent investigation. That implication fits better with the here Cestius, commanded all of its legions (currently
context: whereas his commanders have assumed Judean 4 in Syria; see the note to “commanders” at 2.334).
culpability (or they would not have advocated taking the Each legion’s most senior commanders, alongside the
field with an army), in a pointed rejection of this advice senatorial (praetorian) legatus legionis and the praefec-
260 book two

in with King Agrippa,2115 who was returning from Alexandreia,2116 and explained who had
sent [him] and the reasons.2117 (16.2) 336 There, the chief priests of the Judeans presented
themselves, along with the powerful [men]2118 and the council,2119 welcoming the king.
After [showing] their attentiveness2120 to him, they turned to bitterly lamenting2121 their
own calamities2122 and the savage treatment they were undergoing from Florus.2123
337 At this, although Agrippa became indignant, he strategically transferred his an-
ger2124 to those whom he really pitied,2125 the Judeans,2126 wanting to bring down their
high thoughts and, by not supposing that they had suffered unjustly, to turn them away
from revenge.2127 338 They, being distinguished men and in view of their holdings of

tus castrorum (camp commander), were its 6 tribunes: Either way Neapolitanus has made the major detour.
2116
the highest ranked was usually a man of about 20-24, Cf. 2.309: King Agrippa II made a trip to Alexan-
headed for a senatorial career after his 1-year tour (tri- dria to celebrate with (Ti. Iulius) Alexander on the latter’s
bunus laticlavius); the other 5 were typically equestrians appointment to the prestigious post of Egyptian prefect
(tribuni angusticlavii). For the equestrians, the legionary [66 CE]. See the notes there and at 2.385 below.
2117
tribunate typically came after command of an auxiliary Given the foregoing narrative, the audience might
infantry cohort, as prefect, and before command of a be expected to understand not only the reasons why Ces-
prestigious auxiliary cavalry wing (ala), again as prefect: tius dispatched an emissary but also the reasons why
Parker 1992: 188-90; Webster 1979: 112-13. While he Neapolitanus was chosen: that is, perhaps this briefing
served the legion, a tribune’s work was largely advisory, includes a presentation of the whole situation, with Flo-
administrative, and legal (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 1.37, 44), rus’ letter and the hostile mood of Cestius’ command-
though in combat he had at least nominal responsibility ers.
2118
for two cohorts (Le Bohec 1994: 39). Chief priests and powerful men are a regular pair
2114
According to Life 120-21, Josephus will later in War ; see the note to “chief priests” at 2.243.
2119
face a cavalry prefect named Neapolitanus in Galilee. See the note at 2.331.
2120
Given that these Roman officers bear the same unusual See the note at 2.2: these are the expected, formal-
cognomen (“man of Naples/Neapolis,” scarcely attested ized niceties toward the powerful.
2121
otherwise; cf. Kajanto 1982: 191), in the same region See the note to this tragic language (ἀποδύρομαι)
and at the same period (66-67 CE), and given the typical at 2.292.
2122
career progression reflected in a move from tribune to This is a key word (συμφορά) in War’s tragic
cavalry prefect (previous note), it is likely that the same vocabulary; see 1.9, 11; 2.86 and notes.
2123
person is in view (revising my note ad loc. in BJP 9). I.e., in particular the suffering of the élite. Jose-
Putting together generally known conditions with clues phus has explored this (2.301-8): when members of
from Josephus’ narratives: when he was sent on this fact- the upper class, being summoned before his tribunal,
finding mission to Jerusalem, Neapolitanus appears to refused to give up the youths who had insulted him, Flo-
have been a young equestrian with significant military rus became enraged. He allowed his soldiers to plunder
experience already. He has won the much older gover- their residences, had them whipped, and even crucified
nor’s respect for his fairness and good judgment. those of equestrian status (like himself).
2115 2124
As M-B point out (2.446 n. 170), the tribune went Or “in the manner of a general, he transferred. . .”
out of his way to meet up with the Judean king, for (στρατηγικῶς δὲ τὴν ὀργὴν εἰς οὑς ἠλέει Ἰουδαίους
otherwise he would have left the coastal road further μετέφερεν). See the note to “revenge” in this section.
2125
N than Yavneh/Iamnia (likely at Caesarea, to travel via This is part of War ’s tragic lexicon; see the note
Antipatris and Lod; cf. Cestius’ later route at 2.515). at 2.280 (also in the prologue 1.10 and “compassion”
This suggests a determined effort at diplomacy, working at 1.12).
2126
with the local élite as much as possible; see the note to See further 2.421 below.
2127
“Judeans” at 2.334. It is not clear whether the Iamnia in King Agrippa thus acts as a leader should, accord-
question is the port or the inland town on the road from ing to common wisdom at the time: he stands as a medi-
Ashkelon. If the former, then it seems that Agrippa also ator between the ruling power and the people, trying
went out of his way, remaining on the coastal road from to influence the Roman governors for better treatment
the S much further than he would normally have done en of the people and protect them against unscrupulous
route to Jerusalem. If the latter, Agrippa probably left the governors (cf. Berenice at 2.333), while dousing the
coast at Ashkelon to follow the road inland via Iamnia. flames of grievance and rebellion among the people (cf.
book two 261

property longing for peace,2128 shared the understanding that the king’s reprimand was
well intentioned.2129
The populace, however, went out sixty stadia2130 from Hierosolyma and greeted Agrippa
and Neapolitanus,2131 339 and the wives of those who had been butchered2132 also poured
out, and began shrieking.2133 In response to the wail2134 of these [women], the populace
turned to lamentations2135 and kept begging Agrippa to provide assistance. They were also
shouting at2136 Neapolitanus all the things they had suffered from Florus and, after passing
into the city, pointed out both the ransacked market2137 and the residences that had been
ravaged.2138 340 Then they persuaded* Neapolitanus, through Agrippa,2139 to go around Neapolitanus
the city2140 with one attendant2141 as far as Siloam,2142 so he would realize that, whereas tours Jerusalem,
gives positive
report

Momigliano 1971: 29-30). See 2.421 below, which spells typical activity of mourning women in Greek tragedy
out his predicament as a statesman between people and (LSJ, s.v.: Homer, Il. 18.37; Od. 2.361; Aeschylus, Agam.
overlord. He tries to deal with potential unrest inter- 1313; Sophocles, Ant. 28). On tragic vocabulary in War ,
nally, so that “outside physicians and medicines” will not see the note to “mourn over” at 1.9.
2134
be necessary; even though he did not create the storms See the note to this tragic-pathetic word (οἰμωγή)
himself, he must remain to deal with them, using his at 2.6.
2135
frank speech like an anchor in the storm (Plutarch, Mor. Josephus continues the tragic vocabulary with
[Praec.] 814b-c). ὀλοφυρμός, on which see the note to “mourn over” at
2128
Cf. Salmeri (2000: 74, discussing Dio Chrysos- 1.9.
2136
tom’s world): “In the Greek cities when the have-nots See the note to “yelling at” (same verb) at
found themselves in dire straits they had nothing to lose 2.175.
2137
if they raided the notables’ houses and attracted the atten- At 2.305, Florus in anger had ordered his auxil-
tion of the Roman authorities. . . . It was, by contrast, in iaries to plunder the Upper Market near the Herodian
the interests of the upper classes for harmony and order palace.
2138
to reign in the cities; indeed, it was an indispensable According to 2.305, Florus’ soldiers far exceeded
condition for them to be able to enjoy their economic his orders and plundered also the residences of the
well-being.” We need not take Josephus’ observation, wealthy.
2139
which seems geared mainly to contrasting the clamor of Agrippa’s agency was no doubt both a practi-
the poor masses, as absolute—as though the élite were cal necessity, given that the masses (not members of a
motivated solely by material considerations. Holding Greek-speaking élite) are clamoring, and a political one.
property was one ingredient of a larger social system, Agrippa continues to the play the proper role of a states-
making possible also an education that tended to value man, as intermediary between his people and ultimate
peaceful relations. Roman authorities.
2129 2140
Greek συνίεσαν εὐνοϊκὴν τὴν ἐπίπληξιν τοῦ Although the verb περιελθεῖν might suggest that
βασιλέως. Both adjective and noun occur only here in Neapolitanus, who has already been shown the Upper
Josephus, and the adjective is rarely attested before his City on the W side, goes around the city perimeter (to
time, though the adverbial form εὐνοϊκῶς (as at Ant. the N, E, and S), this would be a formidable walk, nego-
7.259; 13.167) was common. tiating the outer walls and steep ravines, and a seem-
2130
About 7.5 miles or 12 km. Although the masses’ ingly pointless route if he wished to see large numbers
welcoming of the powerful outside the city is a typi- of people. More likely, given that he aims to assess the
cal scene (see the note to “meet the soldiers” at 2.297), popular mood, he moves from the Upper City in the W
Josephus’ notice about the considerable distance here, to the Siloam Pool area in the S through the densely
for the populace to walk (there and back), highlights populated Lower City. This route seems confirmed by
their feelings of outrage and urgency. It is unclear which the complementary verb διοδεύω (“strolled through”) in
route Agrippa and Neapolitanus would have followed this section. The verb might mean “go around within”
from Iamnia (via Ammaus or via the Sorek Valley and or it might refer to his passing by the eastern curve of
Beit-Shemesh). the Upper City hill.
2131 2141
See the note at 2.335. As one would assume, at 3.61 Josephus will note
2132
See the note at 2.30. that the attendants (or servants) of the allied kings were
2133
This verb (κωκύω) occurs only here in Josephus. themselves trained fighters, hardly different from sol-
It would have resonated with educated audiences as the diers. Josephus’ notice here suggests that Neapolitanus
262 book two

Judeans were accommodating in the case of all the other Romans, they were being roused
to hostility in the case of Florus alone, because of the excess of savagery 2143 towards
them. And he [Neapolitanus], when he had strolled through2144 and made a sufficient test
of their mildness, went up* into the temple.2145 341 After summoning the people there
and vigorously commending them for their faithfulness toward the Romans, 2146 while
also vigorously urging them on to maintain the peace, and after making obeisance2147
before God, from where the sacred [acts] were permitted,2148 he returned to Cestius.2149
Judeans demand (16.3) 342 Now the rabble of the Judeans rounded on both the king and the chief priests
embassy to Nero and kept clamoring that they send emissaries to Nero against Florus,2150 and that they not,
by holding their silence about such great slaughter,2151 leave a suspicion of rebellion2152 on

was asked (and agreed) to forego his normal entourage Greek πίστις represents Latin fides, a central political-
and security detail, apparently to encourage a more direct social value in Roman discourse, connoting also honesty,
access to the people he encountered. Perhaps this one constancy, and trusworthiness (Cicero, Off. 1.7.23: “truth
attendant was also an interpreter, to assist in any con- and fidelity to promises and agreements”).
2147
versations that arose. By using this charged verb (προσκυνέω) here Jose-
2142
Josephus uncharacteristically mentions without phus foreshadows the coming speech of Agrippa, which
explanation a place that is likely unfamiliar to his Roman will employ the same verb several times—ironically, of
audience; he will introduce it properly at 5.140; cf. 5.145, those nations that now make obeisance to Rome (2.360,
252, 410, 505; 6.363, 401. This slip may have occurred 366, 380). Even more important, Neapolitanus’ action
because the phrase “as far as Siloam” was something of anticipates the pivotal narrative at 2.408-416, where the
a formula for him (also 5.140; 6.363), to describe the S younger priests decide to prohibit both sacrifices and
extremity of the city. The site, made famous by the Gos- gifts from foreigners. At 2.414 the elders severely casti-
pel of John (9:7, 11), was a fresh-water pool on the SW gate their younger colleagues for this, which will make
side of the hill that comprised the old City of David. It the Judeans the only nation to prevent foreigners from
was a reservoir for water originating in the Gihon Spring making obeisance to God at their temple.
2148
on the E of the hill, from where it was conducted safely Apparently a reference to the outer court of the
within the city by King Hezekiah’s 8th-cent. BCE tunnel temple, where a gentile such as Neapolitanus could make
(1750 ft./0.33 miles/0.53 km). The traditional site of the such a gesture; cf. 5.193-94 on the balustrade inscrip-
pool, rebuilt and marked with a Byzantine church in the tion barring gentiles from access to the inner com-
5th cent. CE by Empress Eudocia, has been superseded pound. Such expressions of piety from foreigners were
by the discovery in 2004 of a large pool (ca. 50 m long) welcome but not surprising: it was expected that one
with several tiers of steps on at least 3 sides, less than would acknowledge local deities wherever one traveled.
200 m. S of the traditional site. See Shanks 2005. Herod’s temple had made ample provision for gentile
2143
This hyperbolic phrase (ὑπερβολή ὠμότητος)— visitors, with its massive outer court. The platform was
for “savagery” is excessive by definition—is characteris- an irregular quadrilateral, whose outer walls measured
tically Josephan. It reoccurs at 4.16; 6.373; cf. 1.97; Ant. as follows: 278 m (912 ft) on the S, 485 m (1590 ft) on
9.231; 13.383; 18.44. Before his time, it is attested most the W, 315 m (1035 ft) on the N, and 468 m (1536 ft)
often in Diodorus (20.72.5; 33.14.4, 15.1; 34/35.29.1), on the E; cf. Ritmeyer and Ritmeyer 2006. A large part
occasionally in Demosthenes (Mid. 109), Polybius of this space, much of what was added by Herod, was
(24.3.1), and Philo (Agr. 155; Spec. 4.202). available to non-Judean visitors.
2144 2149
See the note to “go around the city” in this sec- See 2.335 above.
2150
tion. Josephus portrays a realistic sense of the political
2145
I.e., in the temple precincts, which included the dynamics. Having persuaded the powerful Syrian legate’s
Court of Gentiles; see the note to “permitted” at 2.341. military emissary that they are committed to peace with
2146
Or “loyalty toward the Romans” (ἡ πρὸς Rome, a posture they emphasize in this sentence, the
Ῥωμαίους πίστις). This is a stock phrase in Josephus, people freely convey their true feelings of grievance to
normally used of cities that maintain this political stance their national representatives, whose task it is to inter-
(4.418; Ant. 19.289; Life 39, 46, 71, 104, 349). The cede for them with higher authorities.
2151
phrase apparently comes either from Polybius, the only The phrase (τοσοῦτος φόνος) appears also at
writer attested using it before Josephus (7.1.3; 10.37.10; 1.34; 2.472; cf. 1.355; 3.535; 6.89; Ant. 12.347 14.484.
21.46.2; 24.10.9; 27.16.2), or directly from Latin usage. Although it seems a natural phrase, before his time it
book two 263

themselves; for if they did not take the lead and identify the one who had begun [this],
they would appear to have begun with the weapons themselves.2153 343 And they were
clear that they were not about to acquiesce if anyone should block the embassy.2154
For Agrippa, whereas the [prospect of] hand-selecting2155 Florus’ accusers was invidi-
ous,2156 the [prospect of] standing by and watching the Judeans inflamed2157 for war did
not appear in his interest either.2158 344 After summoning the rabble into the xystus2159
and placing his sister Bernice alongside,2160 in plain view2161 atop the Hasmonean resi-

is attested only in the Hellenistic historians Diodorus Florus is the agent who has fanned the people into flame
(13.23.4; 15.17.4, 57.3; cf. 2.26.7) and Dionysius (Ant. for war.
2158
rom. 3.35.6; 8.25.1; 9.21.2). Josephus uses a disarmingly vivid adjective, albeit
2152
See the note at 2.39. metaphorically, indicating literally “tax relief ” and so
2153
The proposed embassy would thus have two pur- “profit”: οὐδὲ αὐτῷ λυσιτελὲς. It lacks the ambiguity
poses: the fairly standard activity of accusing a governor of “advantageous” at 2.346: amongst his other consid-
and, more urgently, the removal of any impression that erations, the king makes a cold calculation of personal
the large number of Judeans killed under Florus revealed interest. At 2.421 below he will use a cognate verb,
that the people were in rebellion against Rome—that if again to expose Agrippa’s personal calculations—along
so many Judeans were dying, they must have been doing with a genuine concern to keep both the people and the
something to deserve it (necessitating Roman interven- Romans happy. The shift from this claim by the narra-
tion). tor, concerning Agrippa’s internal motives, to Agrippa’s
2154
Josephus builds tension by anticipating Agrippa’s claim at 2.346 (cf. 2.401) that he is concerned solely
response and thus pinning him on the horns of a dilemma, with the people’s benefit may explain the apparent mis-
from which only a brilliant speech might rescue him. match between the speech’s occasion (i.e., the demand
2155
The alternative was election by lot: see the note for an embassy) and its content (i.e., dissuasion from war
to the cognate adjective at 2.123. against Rome). Agrippa simply does not want to address
2156
That is (ἐπίφθονος), something that would gener- the embassy issue and so decides to focus instead on the
ate a grudge against him. Who would bear the grudge? anger of the rabble, artificially exploring the ultimate
Florus, at least, though a successful prosecution might consequences in war as a means of winning their agree-
nullify his significance. More importantly, Agrippa may ment (2.402-5).
2159
be concerned not to offend Cestius Gallus, the Syrian Josephus will mention the xystus several times
legatus who is responsible for Judea, as he has shown by again in War. Most important: at 5.144 he will cite it
sending Neapolitanus and will show again by personal as one terminus of the W-E wall that extended from the
intervention with the Twelfth Legion (2.499-555; see the Hippicus Tower of Herod’s palace (at the W of the Upper
note to “province” at 2.117). Agrippa could not authorize City near present Jaffa Gate) to the xystus and the council
an embassy without Cestius’ decision, and he may have house, from where it proceeded (now as a bridge across
felt that it was not his business (as king of a neighbor- the Tyropean Valley, above the present Wilson’s Arch) to
ing territory) to inform Cestius of his own subordinate’s meet the western colonnade of the temple platform. Cf.
misgovernment in Judea, the more so after the legate’s also 6.191 (“the [temple] gates that led to the xystus”)
own tribune has completed an independent investiga- and 6.377 (auxiliary troops build up earthworks from
tion, conducted with Agrippa’s support, which should the xystus to the level of the bridge above). At 6.325,
have reported the popular hatred of Florus. It is now Titus will address the rebels in the city by taking up a
up to Cestius to deal with the situation, without further position to the W of the temple, where there were gates
pleading from the king. Note 2.351 below: “it is to your “above the xystus” and a bridge connecting the temple
own detriment that you expose the objects of scandal.” to the Upper City. So we have a fairly clear picture of
Although the context is different, Pliny’s correspondence the xystus’ location, on the slope leading to the Upper
(Ep. 7.6) preserves an example (in the Bithynians’ drop- City. But what sort of facility was it?
ping of their case against Varenus Rufus) of the politi- The word ξυστός (literally “polished, scraped”) would
cal complications in which provincial élites might find have been familiar to a Roman audience. It originated as
themselves; see Swain 1996: 222-23. a Greek architectural term for the covered colonnade of
2157
See the note to “fan the flames of [war]” at 2.293. a gymnasium (Pausanias 6.23.1—an enclosed gymna-
This is the same verb, here the aorist passive participle. sium structure at Elis, named in that case for the thistles
264 book two

dence2162—this was above the xystus at the transition to the Upper City,2163 and a bridge
connected the temple to the xystus—,2164 Agrippa spoke as follows:

having been “scraped up” by Heracles in the area); in based in Caesarea. Indeed, one or both facilities might
Roman usage it more often indicated an open courtyard have been built only of wood, as temporary structures
with gardens, adjoining either a gymnasium or a stately (see the full discussion in Bernett 2007: 52-66). It is pos-
residence (cf. Vitruvius 5.11.5). Given Agrippa’s gather- sible, however, that the structures themselves endured to
ing of the people in the xystus, from where they could the time of Agrippa’s speech (with modified functions).
2160
however see Berenice in full view on the roof of the Josephus’ verb παρίστημι is ambiguous: it may
Hasmonean palace above, we should conclude that this suggest “placing alongside” (himself) or “placing before,
was a xystus in the Roman sense: a large open terrace to be present with” (the crowd)—Agrippa has positioned
beneath the walls of the Hasmonean palace to the W and Berenice in full view as a kind of prop. In favor of the lat-
the bridge emerging from the first wall to the N. ter (followed by Whiston and Thackeray) are the absence
A xystus does not require a gymnasium, and it is of any explicit reference to the king’s position and the
not clear that a gymnasium existed in Jerusalem at this apparent restriction of “in plain view” to the queen. In
time (66 CE). Such a facility, whose name reflected favor of the former is the common-sense assumption that
the naked exercise that occurred there, was a central the roof would have been the best place from which to
emblem of Greco-Roman culture and citizenship, on give his speech and the notice at 2.402 that king and
a par with athletic games, dramatic festivals, and their sister together burst into tears on its completion.
2161
attendant sacrifices. The building of such a Greek facil- Since the adjective περίοπτος already means “in
ity in Jerusalem had been a major factor in precipitat- full view, able to be seen all around” (cf. the use at
ing the Hasmonean revolt (1 Macc. 1.14-15; 2 Macc. 2.476), Josephus’ phrase ἐν περιόπτῳ is redundant; he
4.9-10; Ant. 12.241). Whereas War generally emphasizes uses it only here, perhaps for emphasis; before his time
Herod’s building of Greek facilities and sponsoring the it seems attested only in Philo (Dec. 125; later Appian,
related festivals in foreign centers (1.422-28), War 2.44 Bell. civ. 2.18.131; 4.1.2), which may mean that it was
has mentioned a hippodrome in the vicinity of Jerusa- simply a phrasal variation in some circles (note the fre-
lem. At Ant. 15.267-76, Josephus will support his more quent parallels to Philo in War ’s language).
2162
antagonistic portrait of Herod there with a review of Josephus explains the site here because he has not
foreign institutions and customs that he brought into mentioned it before, and he will not do so again in War .
Jerusalem: soon after the confirmation of his rule by At Ant. 20.189-90, however, he will offer a further brief
Octavian (Augustus), Herod built a decorated theater description: the Hasmoneans had erected a palace near
and amphitheater, instituted quinquennial games, and the Xystus (see the note in this section), and Agrippa II
invited athletes from around the world to compete for added to this a large extra story (οἴκημα), from which
generous prizes. The related activities Josephus describes he had a commanding view of the priests going about
under Herod’s rule—naked exercise and chariot-racing their business in the temple.
(Ant. 15.270-71)—presuppose the existence of a gym- It is uncertain here whether Agrippa and Berenice
nasium and hippodrome. The theater was “in Jerusalem” are positioned on this recently built story (in which case
(Ant. 15.268, 277-78, though a theater cavea has been the “in full view” notice would have special meaning for
identified S of the Hinnom Valley, facing Jersalem from Josephus) or along an eastern wall of the compound.
2163
that direction; Richardson 1996: 186-87), the amphithe- Or “towards the junction [or “crossing”] of the
ater “in the plain” (Ant. 15.268, presumably SW of the Upper City” (πρὸς τὸ πέραν τῆς ἄνω πόλεως). Jose-
city). The hippodrome was likely the same structure as phus’ phrasing is not perfectly clear, but perhaps clear
the amphitheater (compare 1.659 with 1.666 and see enough—for a Roman audience lacking a picture of the
note to “stadium” at 2.172)—also to the S (War 2.44; area—to place the palace on the Upper-City side oppo-
Ant. 17.255). Given that Josephus limits his attack on site the temple, as he will later explain. See the note to
these violations of Judean law to King Herod’s actions “residence” in this section, also 5.144; Ant. 20.189-90.
2164
at a specific time, and given his portrait of widespread This is apparently the bridge whose base is pre-
popular hostility to such practices, comparable to the served in Wilson’s Arch. After crossing the Tyropean Val-
outbreaks of protest under Pilate and Petronius for per- ley, where the bridge met the xystus, the council house,
ceived violations of law in relation to pagan symbols, and the Hasmonean palace, pedestrians continued along
it is difficult to imagine that these institutions remained the broad wall leading to Herod’s palace in the W of the
unchanged, especially under the high-priestly administra- city; see the preceding notes.
tion of Jerusalem after 6 CE—with Roman governors
book two 265

EXCURSUS II: THE DELIBERATIVE SPEECH OF AGRIPPA II

What follows (2.346-401) is the first of War ’s seven were generally seen as zones of free creation, where
main deliberative speeches (the others: 3.362-82; authors could display their own rhetorical skill by
4.163-92, 238-69; 5.376-419; 6.99-110; 7.341-88), crafting set pieces for their characters. Polybius
and undoubtedly the most important one by vir- (12.25a.4-5, 25i-26b) criticizes Timaeus for pad-
tue of its placement, at the eleventh hour before ding his speeches with unnecessary and improbable
unstoppable revolt. As we saw also with Josephus’ material: like someone in a rhetorical school who
Essenes, this passage has often been mined for pur- accepts the challenge of speaking on any topic, he
poses extraneous to its literary function and shape. charges, Timaeus constructs a speech that bears no
In contrast to the Essene passage, however, there relation to what anyone actually said. Indeed, Poly-
have been a number of beginning efforts to engage bius claims that most historians embellish speeches
the speech in its narrative context.a This excursus considerably beyond “what was truly said,” and
aims to build on those efforts by raising some basic that speech-writing is essentially an opportunity to
problems and complicating too-simple readings of display talent. He will avoid including orations of
Josephus’, or Agrippa’s, ideology. any length (36.1.1-7)—and so he does. Most of his
known successors felt no such constraints.
All of Josephus’ major speeches, as the concor-
Speeches and History-Writing dance allows the student to discover (see the follow-
ing notes), are his literary creations: they develop,
The use of speeches had been an integral part of often in subtle ways, his themes, vocabulary, and
Greek writing about the past ever since Homer’s rhetorical techniques. This does not mean, however,
epics. Although Herodotus also used them, schol- that Agrippa gave no speech on this occasion, or
arly attention has focused on a passage in Thucy- that Josephus uses the opportunity to express any
dides’ prologue (1.22.1), which seems to explain simple ideology or thesis. We can see from the
how that most careful of ancient historians handled ongoing comparison of War with his later narra-
such discursive breaks in the narrative. Yet still in tives in this commentary, from his ability to play off
the twenty-first century that passage continues to equally compelling characters against each other in
attract debate and new analysis.b It is generally the preceding narrative, and from his construction
agreed that while the speeches as they stand are of two opposing speeches on the theme of suicide
Thucydides’ productions, they preserve something (3.362-82; 7.341-88), that these literary creations,
(but how much?) of what was said on the occasion. like the rest of his narratives, defy straightforward
Analysis reveals that he gave them their shape, ideological analysis. They are surely designed to
diction (for the most part), and emphasis; what he impress his literary audience, but they do so with a
preserved of the original might be only a general kind of rhetorical brilliance that lends itself to many
thesis, stance, or tone—if that. levels of interpretation, rather than the essay-like
With the inevitable elaboration of, and experi- working out of a simple thesis.
mentation with, literary-rhetorical elements in his-
toriography (cf. Woodman 1988), speeches became
An Occasion for a Statesman
ever more abundant and useful to historians. They
Josephus will later report that he maintained a
copious correspondence with Agrippa, including
a
Essential are Lindner 1972: 21-25; Rajak 1991; preliminary drafts of War’s volumes, as he was com-
Runnalls 1997. posing the work in Rome in the 70s (Life 362-67).
b
E.g., Garrity 1998; Pelling 2000: 112-22; already If any such collaboration occurred, the king must
Jebb (1907: 359-445) for the main issues. have accepted, at least after the fact, the way that
266 book two

Josephus presents him here. It is inherently likely of the legions’ dispositions and opted to accommo-
that Josephus makes him look like a better orator, date it here in a thorough revision of the speech,
in retrospect, than he was on the occasion.c propagandistically. Were that the case, however,
The present speech shows a highly cultured and the long speech should have been inserted after
politically astute native king trying his best to fulfil the short one, for its opposition to choosing war
the statesman’s most essential task:d to draw the must then assume what is spelled out only in the
populace back from thoughts of war, no matter how addendum (2.403-4): that non-payment of taxes and
legitimate the provocations might seem. The occa- destroying the colonnade amount to war. And this
sion and the oration do not seem precisely matched, scenario springs from Laqueur’s view, which seems
however. Although resentment against Gessius Flo- now untenable in the face of the evidence, that
rus has been steadily building in the preceding Josephus wrote the speech “in the Roman spirit”
narrative, the people to whom the king is now (1970 [1920]: 257).e
appealing have just made it clear to him, as they An alternative explanation of the mismatch
have satisfied the tribune Neapolitanus, that they between context and content is that Josephus pres-
do not seek war with Rome (2.340). In fact, they ents Agrippa as a politician deliberately creating
wish to preclude any impression of rebelliousness a straw man, which he can then attack with full
by sending an embassy to Nero, pleading only for rhetorical force, as a way of winning over his audi-
relief from the rapacious governor, Florus (2.342). ence. Still today this tactic is a staple of political
It is not clear how Agrippa’s learned speech on the speech-making: reconfigure a political opponent’s
futility of going to war, which dissects unsound
view or an uncomfortable question from a journal-
motives and adduces cautionary tales to check a
ist (e.g., on health care or conflicts abroad) in the
putative “longing for freedom” (2.355), confronts
most extreme terms, in order to rail against it ful-
their demand for an embassy, for the express pur-
somely, hoping to win over observers who either
pose of removing suspicion about hostile intentions
do not notice the shifting target or consider it a
(2.342).
legitimate reductio ad absurdum of the unwelcome
Josephus seems fully aware of the problem: after
challenge.
patiently listening to the king’s lengthy disquisition,
the people remind Agrippa that this is all very well,
but they do not want to fight the Romans, only Florus The Rhetoric of the Speech
(2.402). Only then, in a brief afterthought (2.403),
does Agrippa point out that some of their actions Donna Runnalls (1997) provides a helpful analysis
are tantamount to inviting war with Rome—rather of the speech’s rhetorical features (see also the fol-
undercutting the logic of his preceding assault on lowing notes), beginning with the observation that
a drive toward radical freedom. Perhaps Josephus its structure is standard (cf. Cicero, Part. 27-60):
had crafted the speech as an independent exercise exordium (introduction: 2.345-47), narratio (state-
in declamation, and decided that this was the best ment of the case: 348-57), confirmatio/argumen-
available occasion to use his tour de force. tatio (proof: 358-87), and peroratio (conclusion:
R. Laqueur (1970 [1920]: 256-57), followed by 388-401). A problem, however, is that most of what
H. Lindner (1972: 21), argued that Agrippa’s speech Runnalls puts in the peroratio actually presents new
was inserted in a subsequent draft of War 2, the first issues and proofs (on possible allies, preserving
version having included only 2.403-4 (the adden- Judean law, and the disastrous consequences of
dum in the current text) as Agrippa’s brief response reprisals in other cities: 2.388-99). Lindner’s pro-
to the appeal for an embassy. At some later point, posed outline (1972: 21) rightly recognizes that this
in Rome, Josephus received an empire-wide survey is still part of the “body” of the speech. We should
perhaps restrict the conclusion, then, to 2.400-401,
allowing the argumentatio to fill the rest. According
c
Cf. Rajak (1991: 129): “improving rather than rea-
listically depicting the hapless Agrippa.”
d
Cf. Eckstein 1995: 194-236 (on Polybius’ time);
e
Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 816a-824d; Swain 1996: 161- See the perceptive observations to the contrary in
86. Stern 1987: 76-77; Rajak 1991: 129-31.
book two 267

to Cicero (Part. 27), the opening and closing of a far from normal for the rest of the empire; indeed
speech are aimed at arousing the audience’s emo- he seems to be trying to create the impression of a
tion, which would clearly be the case in this revised norm where none existed.
arrangement: at 2.402, Agrippa bursts into tears, By specifying stable numbers of legions in each
and temporarily wins over the audience (2.405). province, but without identifying them (which he
Thus, the structure should perhaps be understood could easily have done if he had used the official
as follows: Roman document that scholars imagine),h Josephus’
exordium (introduction) 2.345-47 Agrippa strengthens the illusion that the speech
narratio (statement of the case) 2.348-57 tries to create: that the inhabited earth now reposes
confirmatio/argumentatio (proof) 2.358-99 in static tranquillity under Roman hegemony. The
peroratio (conclusion) 2.400-401 king has two ostensible motives for indicating num-
In this case, of the 57 Niese sections in the bers of legions: (a) to show that, since territories
speech, 42 would be devoted to the argumentatio, that are home to ferocious warriors now submit
reflecting the ancient view that this was the deci- to small forces of Romans, the Judeans must do
sive part (Lausberg 1998: 160-61). This part also the same, and (b) to show that the Judeans in fact
provides conspicuous parallels to Aelius Aristides’ have much less reason to complain than provinces
(second-century CE) review, in his encomium To such as Egypt, which must deal with the onerous
Rome, of the “inhabited earth” and the former pow- maintenance of legions (and grain supply) among
ers now subject to Rome, with the crucial difference their heavier provincial obligations.
The stable numbers of legions and happily
that Aristides’ encomiastic tone is replaced here by
accepted tax arrangements asserted by Agrippa
Agrippa’s cold realism (see further below).
conceal, however, the seething resentment and rebel
initiatives that characterized much of the empire’s
The Stability of the Empire? first century, which was marked by rebellions in
Thrace (13-10 BCE), Pannonia (6-9 CE), Germany
Agrippa’s speech has understandably been mined (9 CE), Africa under Tacfarinas (17-24 CE, again
for its references to provincial administration and in 45-46 CE), the Aedui and Treveri in Gaul under
the disposition of the legions.f In the latter regard, it Sacrovir and Florus (21 CE), Britain under Carata-
is generally held that Josephus reflects the situation cus and then Boudicca (48-61 CE), Judea (4 BCE,
at his own time of writing (ca. 74-75 CE), rather 6 CE, 66-73 CE), and of course Batavia (69-70
than in the summer of 66 when Agrippa report- CE)—known to Josephus and his audience, even if
edly gave the speech.g That conclusion is, however, after the story time of Agrippa’s speech. Under the
doubtful. If in some cases his numbers of legions rubric of “unrest” one would need also to include
match conditions in 74 but not 66 CE (2.377), in the ongoing tensions with Parthia over Armenia
others the reverse is the case (2.369, 375). If he before Corbulo’s settlement of 63 CE, the mutinies
puts eight legions in Germany, whereas there were and conspiracies of Roman generals culminating
only seven in 66 CE, he is nonetheless giving the in the great civil war of 68-69 CE, and indeed the
earlier and standard configuration, temporarily put low-grade resentment of Rome across much of the
into disarray by the campaigns of Corbulo, the Greek East, which comes through clearly—as the
Roman civil war, the Judean war, and the Batavian statesman’s responsibility to manage—in Josephus’
revolt through the 60s, but then normalized again contemporaries Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom.i
by Vespasian. The time of Agrippa’s speech was If Josephus had identified the legions, that would
have necessitated commenting on their constant
movements in the mid- to late 60s, as a result of
f
Basic studies of legionary dispositions in general
include Ritterling 1925, 1927; Parker 1992 [1958]; and
h
Le Bohec and Wolff 2000; on the disposition described Gabba (1976-77: 190) observes that Josephus’ mi-
by Josephus’ Agrippa in relation to historical reality, litary details, though probably based on official docu-
Domaszewski 1892 and Saulnier 1991. ments, would not have been difficult for someone with
g
Lindner 1972: 22 n. 3; Vitucci 1974: 634 n. 6; Paul his political and military connections to have known.
i
1990: 81; Saulnier 1991: 199, 220; Parker 1992: 140 E.g., Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 813d-16a, 819a,
n. 1. 824e-f; Dio, Orr. 32, 38, 46.
268 book two

emergency redeployments to deal with problems. history, there to claim that the Judeans have never
It is essential to Agrippa’s point, however, that he succeeded by taking up arms (5.390). This is the
create the illusion of stability everywhere except kind of deception that Plutarch considers necessary
Judea. at times, in addressing the masses, to keep them on
Josephus’ outline of the legions’ disposition is a peaceful course (Mor. [Praec.] 800-804, 813b-c,
also relevant for the scholarly debate concerning 818e-19b).
the Romans’ “frontier” strategy.j In this regard it is This ironic quality frustrates efforts to read the
striking that he gives much more attention to the speech as an ideological program, much less as
army’s role as pacifier of the area in which it is Flavian propaganda.l Even the ironic elements are
based (2.367-70, 375, 377)—while at the same time shaped to serve a brutally realistic rhetorical pos-
insisting that the nations are indeed pacific under ture, which contains no hint of Rome-messianism.
Roman rule—than to any frontier-defense function. It is, rather, strongly reminiscent of Thucydides’
One explanation of the curiosity that Josephus does Melian Dialogue (Thucydides 5.86-111; cf. also
not mention the legions of Judea’s nearest neighbor, 1.42.1-2; 1.76; 3.56), in Agrippa’s clear-eyed focus
Syria, may be this focus on internal pacification, on what is advantageous for the nation. He feels
for in many cases (Britain, Spain, Gaul, Egypt) great compassion for his people (2.337), and agrees
he stresses that legions dominated areas that were that Florus is intolerable (2.348, 352); he also con-
naturally cut off from the outside world—and so siders the idea of political independence a noble
faced no external threat. one (2.355). Significantly, Josephus does not have
the king adopt his own sophisticated view, that the
nation has always been properly and best governed
Ironic Possibilities
by a local priestly aristocracy (rejecting kingship),
well able to prosper under remote foreign rule;
Although Josephus’ Agrippa introduces thematic
Agrippa does not try to finesse the meaning of
clusters that will reoccur in speeches by other
“freedom” as Josephus does.m For him it is a cold
characters,k especially the notion that God must
but ineluctable fact that the Judeans, like every
have allowed Roman power to arise (2.390; cf.
other Mediterranean people, have now lost their
5.367), this one has particular features that uniquely
freedom and indeed become “slaves” (2.357-58,
suit its speaker and its location at this early stage,
365). They must, however, make the best of it—as
before the outbreak of war. The king will spare no
their equally proud and better-positioned neighbors
effort (as he notes, 2.401) to steer the people away
do—if they are to survive.
from war, even if (as the literary audience knows)
This is therefore not a speech that we can imag-
this means building a rhetorical case that overlooks
ine Josephus’ character giving, and it is very dif-
inconvenient facts. That many of his assertions are
ferent from the one he later crafts for himself as
either debatable or clearly false (see the notes) cre-
priestly counselor (5.362-419), though that will also
ates the conditions for irony: the literary audience
be a tour de force. Josephus no doubt expected, and
can see the distance between the author’s voice
deserved, admiration for his ability to create such
and what author and audience know to be true.
a plausible oration for a character as distinctive as
Josephus’ own later speech will likewise manipulate
Agrippa, a service he will later perform with gusto
even for Eleazar ben Ya‘ir of Masada (7.341-88).
j
E.g., Luttwak 1976; Mann 1979; Isaac 1992; Whit-
l
taker 1994; Mattern 1999: 81-122; overview in Whit- Pace Saulnier 1991 in particular, but also the estab-
taker 2004: 28-46. lished tendency of older scholarship.
k m
See Lindner 1972: 40-48 and Rajak 1991: 124-25. Cf. 1.169; 2.22, 90-92 with Mason 2008b.
book two 269

(16.4) 345 If 2165 I saw2166 all of you rushing to make war on the Romans,2167 and not Agrippa II
the purest2168 and sincerest [element]2169 of the populace preferring to make peace, I would addresses
crowd in xystus
neither have come to you here nor dared to give advice; for every speech in the service
of doing what is necessary2170 is pointless whenever the consensus2171 of all those listening
is for the worse [course].2172 346 But seeing that some are provoked2173 by an age [in life]
inexperienced2174 in the evils that accompany war,2175 some by an irrational hope2176 for
freedom,2177 and a few by a certain greed and—should matters become confounded—the

2165
Josephus will give the chief priest Jesus, address- in Aristotle, Magn. mor. 1.34.17; Pol. 1316b; Chrysip-
ing the Idumeans, the same opening phrase (4.240): “If pus, Frag. log. phys. 989; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.62.1;
I saw [εἰ µὲν ἑώρων] . . . , whereas in fact. . . .” Begin- Philo, Jos. 75; Dio, Or. 68.5.
2173
ning the exordium of a speech with an unreal condition Or “prompted, aroused, stirred” (παροξύνω). See
introduced by εἰ as here (“If it were the case that X, then the note to this dramatic verb at 2.8. The translation here
perhaps I might have agreed to Y”), was common among casts in the passive voice, for the sake of English idiom,
the Greek orators: Lysias Orr. 16, 32; Isocrates, Antid. what the Greek has in the active (“Seeing that an age [in
15, 18; Hel. enc. 2.1; and most famously Demosthenes, life] inexperienced in the evils of war some, an irratio-
Phil. 1, with its crescendo of “if ” clauses; Androt. 4.1. nal hope for freedom some, and a certain greed a few
Cf. Xenophon, Anab. 5.6.30; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.28; . . . provokes . . .”). As in Thucydides (5.99) and Poly-
17.1; Lucian, Merc. 5. As always, Josephus shows him- bius (11.32.5-7), so also here this verb often indicates
self fully aware of rhetorical convention. behavior driven by emotion (see “irrational hope” in this
2166
Josephus uses the imperfect indicative (εἰ µὲν section) rather than rational analysis.
2174
ἑώρων), followed by ἄν in the apodosis (“I would neither For inexperience on account of age, cf. Ant. 7.336.
have come. . . .”), to stress non-fulfillment of the action On Josephus’ treatment of hot-headed youth in general
in question (Smyth §: 2292). see the note to “youths” at 2.225.
2167 2175
Agrippa appears to have set up an artificial con- Greek τῶν ἐν πολέµῳ κακῶν is formulaic. Cf.
text so that he can deploy the full range of arguments κακὰ πολέµου at 1.304; 6.13.
2176
against war with Rome. According to the immediately Agrippa reinforces his statesman’s perspective by
preceding narrative, the people have been clamoring for invoking rationality as criterion of political behavior, a
an embassy to Nero (2.342-44), to make clear that the legacy of Thucydides and Polybius. The former exposed
current unrest was caused only by Florus, emphatically the foolishness of hope based in external assistance (cf.
not by a desire for war with Rome. See Excursus. War 2.389), in the Melian dialogue (5.103), and in gen-
2168
Or “most guiltless.” The phrase, “the purest ele- eral offered a profound psychological analysis of political
ment of the populace” (τοῦ δήµου τὸ καθαρώτατον) is action (Mader 2000: 23-54). Polybius found that “time
used similarly by Dionysius (Ant. rom. 10.8.1—contrast- after time, the leaders of weaker states had led them into
ing the charge of a mob) and Philo (Flac. 141). unnecessary and disastrous wars with the Romans, acting
2169
Josephus uses the adjective εἰλικρινής (here from strategic mismanagement, and/or simple irratio-
superlative) only here in War , elsewhere at Ant. 19.321. nality and passion” (Eckstein 1995: 234). The adjective
Runnalls (1997: 747) observes that the double superla- ἀλόγιστος appears in significant contexts also at War
tive sharpens the contrast between the groups of which 3.308; 4.123; 7.7; cognates at 1.335, 522; 2.389 (also in
Agrippa approves and those (beginning in 2.346) of Agrippa’s speech), 412; 4.170, 211, 240; 5.426; 6.176,
whom he disapproves. 179, 197. For Polybius as Josephus’ chief model in this
2170
The phrase τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν is formulaic: Aesop, respect, see Eckstein 1990: 190-92, 195-98. This theme
Fab. 336; Xenophon, Oec. 12.13; Demosthenes, Olynth. will be completed with Agrippa’s notice about “your
1.6; 2.3; 3.3, 11; Chers. 51; Phil 3.4; Cor. 246; Epit. 18; tempers” at 2.401.
2177
Dio Chrysostom, Or. 70.9. See the note to “freedom” at 2.259. The entire
2171
See the note to this important theme, the opposite War is in some respects a meditation on the meaning
of στάσις, at 2.166 (“concord”). of political freedom, and Agrippa’s speech deals with
2172
This phrase (πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον) anticipates its oppo- the issue in concentrated form: ἐλευθερία and cognates
site at the end of 2.346: Agrippa can speak about what he appear 11 times in this relatively brief space, while the
considers “advantageous” (τὸ συµφέρον or τὸ βέλτιον; opposite semantic field, “slavery” (δουλεία), balances
see the note there) because not everyone has determined it with 12 appearances—mostly towards the end of the
to opt for the worse. Cf. the use of these near opposites speech (2.375, 377-79). Rather than examining the true
270 book two

[prospect of] profit2178 from those who are weaker;2179 in order that these very ones might
be recalled to their senses2180 and reverse course, and that the good might not share the
harvest2181 of the bad counsel2182 of a few, I reckoned that I ought to gather you all together
in the same place, to say what I consider to be advantageous.2183
347 Now, let no one create disorder for me if what he hears is not to his liking!2184 For
those who have begun rushing irremediably2185 into the rebellion,2186 it remains possible
also after my exhortation to hold the same views, whereas on my side the speech falls
through—also for those who wish to hear [it]—if there is not silence from everyone.2187

meaning of freedom, as other members of the élite have e.g.: Σχεδὸν εἴρηχ’ ἃ νοµίζω συµφέρειν (Or. 3.36);
implicitly done in conversation with each other (2.25, [πειράσοµαι περὶ αὐτῶν] εἰπεῖν ἃ νοµίζω συµφέρειν
90), and as Josephus does implicitly with War’s liter- (Phil. 4.1; cf. Meg. 32; Exord. 4.1; 52.1).
ary audience, for the purposes of this speech Agrippa Josephus’ use of the verb συµφέρω in this delibera-
accepts the rebel premise that Judean lot is indeed one tive context—where grand themes of national freedom
of political “slavery” to Rome. He does not disguise the (vs. slavery), justice, and honor are at stake—places his
fact, but presents compelling reasons for accepting this Agrippa firmly in the tradition of the Greek statesman.
humble situation as the most advantageous, and indeed Thucydides had brought home the brutal truth that only
the only safe course for the people. states with equivalent power may discuss what is just;
2178
Runnalls (1997: 748) points out that these 3 (by weaker states are obliged to do what is necessary for
her count, 4) items are listed in such a way as to empha- their own safety (5.89). The conflicting claims of “the
size the last and most ignoble: profit. just” (τὸ δίκαιον) over against “the expedient, advanta-
2179
Although the prospect of profiting from upheaval geous” (τὸ ξυµφέρον) provide the main theme of his
recalls a line in the prologue (1.5), that had specifically Melian Dialogue (5.86-111; cf. also 1.42.1-2; 1.76; 3.56).
to do with military profits (presumably including dona- Polybius, another of Josephus’ models, prefers to con-
tives; see the note there). The reference here is more gen- trast “what is honorable” (τὸ καλόν: 8.11.7; 15.24.4-5;
eral, anticipating the frequently described rebel leaders’ 21.32c.1-3; 24.12.2; 38.1.9) to what is expedient; cf.
also Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 805c, 808b, 817e. Polybius
exploitation by brute force of weaker fellow-Judeans,
often presents these options as polar opposites, between
once the central government is removed (e.g., 4.335, 357,
which statesmen must try to steer. Thus, his Philopoemen
379; 6.202-3; cf. 4.587 of the Roman civil war).
2180 uniquely managed to combine both (21.32c). Aristaenus,
See the note to “irrational hope” in this section.
in criticizing Philopoemen’s policy of both resisting and
This verb (σωφρονίζω) stressing rational behavior reoc-
complying with Rome, as the situation required, takes a
curs at 2.493; 3.308 (connected, as here, with ἀλόγιστος),
position rather like Agrippa’s here: “There were, he said,
445. The cognate σωφρονέω is at 2.419, 128 in the near two objectives in all governance, the honorable and the
context below (also 5.419; 6.219, 234; 7.83). advantageous (τό τε καλόν καὶ τὸ συµφέρον). Whereas
2181
This verb (παραπολαύω) occurs only here in Jose- the achievement of honor is certainly what those in gov-
phus and is rarely attested before him (Aesop, Fab. 29; ernment should aim at, when it lies in their power to
Chrysippus, Frag. log. phys. 1157; Philo, Abr. 249; Ios. do so, for those who are powerless it is necessary to
21). It fits a pattern (see Introduction) of Josephus’ using resort to the attainment of their advantage.” Agrippa will
words that are becoming popular in the Greek revival (cf. argue, similarly, that the Judeans have long since lost all
Plutarch, Frag. [Sandbach] 36; Galen, Us. part. [Kühn] possibility of an honorable independence and must now
3.719; Lucian, Alex. 45; Aristides, Lept. [Dindorf] 166); deal with the reality of submission. See also Josephus’
in this he is often heralded by Philo, though there is no description of Ananus’ policy below (2.651).
question of dependence in content. 2184
Lit. “if he should not hear to his liking/pleasure.”
2182
This (κακοβουλία) is distinctive Josephan vocab- The phrase πρὸς ἡδονήν is amply attested, but Josephus
ulary; see the note at 2.210 above and 2.399 below. is its biggest extant user (23 occurrences) before his con-
2183
Or “beneficial, productive, expedient, in your temporary Plutarch (about 40).
interest.” See the note to “interest either” at 2.343, on 2185
Josephus’ hand is evident in this characteris-
the disparity between Agrippa’s interests and those of tic adverb; see the note to “irremediable suffering” at
the people; also the note to “safety” at 2.401—the end 2.233.
of the speech, creating an inclusio. Josephus’ phrasing 2186
See note at 2.39.
here (εἰπεῖν ἃ νοµίζω συµφέρειν) recalls a distinctive 2187
Cf. Socrates’ famous demand for quiet in Apol.
construction in Demosthenes’ deliberative speeches, 27b, 30c, and Demosthenes (Exord. 4.1): “For it often
book two 271

348 Although, then,2188 I know that many are waxing tragic2189 on the abuses by the
procurators, and with encomia2190 on freedom,2191 before scrutinizing who you are, and
against whom you take it upon yourselves2192 to make war,2193 I shall first unravel2194
this entanglement2195 of justifications.2196 349 For if, on the one hand, you are avenging
yourselves on those causing injury,2197 why do you treat freedom as sacred?2198 If, on the
other hand, you consider it intolerable to be a slave,2199 then [leveling] blame at the gov-
ernors is superfluous; being a slave would be equally shameful even if they were showing
restraint!2200

2194
happens that the same person is wrong on one point and Or “decouple, separate” (διαζεύγνυµι); see the
right on another; and so by shouting him down when note to “split up” at 2.108.
2195
displeased you may perhaps deprive yourselves of many See the note at 2.55: this is the exception to
useful ideas, whereas by attending with decorum and Josephus’ normal use of συµπλοκή for military engage-
in silence, you will act on every sound proposal, and if ments.
2196
you think someone is making a foolish suggestion, you Or “pretexts.” This (plural of πρόφασις) is char-
will ignore it.” Dio Chrysostom repeatedly appeals for a acteristic Josephan language concerning causation; see
fair hearing, especially in addressing rambunctious Alex- the note to “justification” at 2.285. The clever untangling
andrians (Or. 32.1-2, 24, 33) but even before a hostile of opponents’—or the recalcitrant masses’—claims, in
audience in his home city of Prusa (Or. 46.1); he too order to treat each one separately and also expose con-
gives reasons why a patient hearing is in the audience’s tradictions among them, was a common rhetorical tech-
interest (cf. 36.24-5; 38.4-5). nique: cf. 2.323 above; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.21-32
2188
Josephus’ Agrippa moves from the exordium to (scrutinizing alleged reasons for Nicomedia’s hostility
the narratio of his speech: the brief statement of his toward Nicea). Josephus will use this kind of argument
case (2.348-57). Runnalls (1997: 748) observes that this with great frequency in the apologetic middle section of
section comprises “controlled periodic sentences,” which the Apion, on which see Barclay in BJP 10.
2197
follow the accepted standard (Demetrius, Eloc. 16) by That is, on the procurators, especially Florus. The
not exceeding 4 clauses. phrase ἀµύνω + accusative participle of ἀδικέω is classi-
2189
As in Josephus’ only other use of the verb τραγῳ- cal (Thucydides 1.43.4; 4.98.2; Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.14;
δέω (Ant. 16.346), the sense is both sarcastic and ironic: Plato, Leg. 737d; Polybius 4.26.4; Philo, Abr. 213; Mos.
sarcastic because the speaker implies colorful and mourn- 1.40, 111), and paralleled elsewhere in Josephus (Ant.
ful exaggerations on the part of others, for the sake of 11.281; 13.381; 16.298).
2198
creating a gripping drama; ironic because Josephus as Although Agrippa’s challenge does not seem to
author has in fact presented the whole story, especially suit his immediate audience, it does confront an ideol-
the abuses of the procurators thus far, precisely as a ogy of freedom that Josephus introduced at 2.118 (see
tragic spectacle (see Introduction and 1.9-12). This is one note to “God” there), which Agrippa may assume his
of many hints to the audience that Agrippa’s speech is present audience also rejects, given their request for an
offered as a tour de force, challenging or denying even embassy to prove that they have no intention of rebel-
what the character himself knows to be true for the sake ling (2.342).
2199
of steering the people to safety. Cf. Plutarch’s criticism See the note to “freedom” at 2.345. Understanding
of Theopompus (Dem. 21.2). submission to Rome as either slavery or potential slavery
2190
See the note to “encomium” at 1.2. Like “waxing (if local ancestral constitutions could not be sufficiently
tragic,” this language suggests pointless rhetorical show asserted and cherished) lies close to the surface of a
instead of the practical political wisdom that the states- number of passages in Josephus’ Greek contemporaries,
man Agrippa is about to offer. Plutarch and Dio (Or. 31.113-14, 125); cf. Swain 1996:
2191
See the notes to “freedom,” a bedrock theme of 209. Dio (Or. 34.51) remarks that simmering disputes
the War , at 2.259 and 2.346 above. over primacy among cities of Asia Minor are nothing but
2192
This nuance of ἐπιχειρέω is suggested by the con- a competition among fellow-slaves for pre-eminence.
2200
text, though the sense might simply be the more common Of course, this compelling logic overlooks the
“undertake, make an attempt at [war-making].” standard interweaving of these two motives by resistance
2193
These basic questions, which underlie the entire groups under foreign occupation (e.g., America, India,
speech from 2.355, are brought into focus at 2.355-57, and Africa under Britain): a principled desire for liberty
361-65. (from anyone) may well remain nearly dormant under
272 book two

Bad governors 350 But examine closely how slight the case is—even according to each of these
are not the [arguments]—for making war. First, as for the accusations against the procurators:2201 it
ruling power
is necessary to cultivate,2202 and not goad,2203 the authorities. 351 Whenever you fashion
great echoes of scandal2204 from these minor shortcomings,2205 it is to your own detriment
that you prosecute2206 the objects of scandal;2207 after leaving off harming you covertly,
and with shame, they ruin you openly.2208 Nothing repels the blows as well as tolerating
them,2209 and to those who cause injury the quiet [disposition] of those being injured
becomes a distraction.2210

benevolent rule, as long as things are obviously improv- Aristotle, Pol. 1303b, 1320b. Agrippa’s audience might
ing for the native population; the situation will be quickly have responded with Lysias (Alc. 1.2): “His failings are
aggravated by corrupt or brutal governors or harsh poli- neither trivial nor worthy of pardon (οὐ γὰρ µικρὰ τὰ
cies, and the call for national liberation triggered by such ἁµαρτήµατα οὐδὲ συγγνώµης ἄξια); nor do they fur-
perceived oppression will not be as self-contradictory as nish hope that he will be better in the sequel.” Agrippa’s
Agrippa implies. But the speech that Josephus crafts for special pleading is obvious, for the misdeeds of Florus
him is meant to dazzle the literary audience. related by Josephus have been anything but trivial.
2201 2206
Discontent with Rome’s governors was widespread The verb ἀπελέγχω is characteristic of Josephus,
in the provinces. Dio’s second Tarsian oration (Or. 34) as it is of Philo, who accounts for 8 of the 27 attestations
deals directly with the problem of handling an arrogant before Josephus. Josephus has it 8 times, but in War only
and abusive governor. The Tarsians were famous for their here and at 2.621.
2207
prosecutions of governors (34.9), but in this case Dio Or “you vindicate” or “expose/denounce/convict”
advises them to come to terms with the man or face even “those who are the subjects of reproach/scandal against
worse prospects (34.40-41); cf. Swain 1996: 216-19. If yourselves.” The Greek syntax (καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν τοὺς
at all possible, one should figure out a way to bear the ὀνειδιζοµένους ἀπελέγχετε) allows a number of pos-
injustices of foreign rule. sibilities. The finite verb most often means “refute thor-
2202
Greek θεραπεύειν γάρ . . . χρὴ τὰς ἐξουσίας. oughly” (as in the other occurrence in War —2.620; cf.
Cf. Plutarch (Mor. [Princ. philos.] 776a-b): one should Ant. 11.56), but it can mean the opposite (“vindicate”)
speak to those in power earnestly and attentively, or with or something close (“prove to be [something good]”), as
a view to their well-being (λιπαρὴς τῶν ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ at Ant. 4.89; 10.133; 12.20. The verb can also be abso-
θεραπευτικός). Agrippa’s [Josephus’] verb is well cho- lute (“procure a conviction”) or transitive; although the
sen for its many nuances (see the note to “attentiveness” latter is indicated by the accusative object, that option
at 2.2): he does not say that rulers should be flattered leaves the precise relationship with the opening geni-
or indulged or pardoned, though he leaves open such tive clause unclear. If the translation here is valid, the
possibilities. reference would be to the Judeans’ intention to send an
2203
See the note at 2.316. embassy to Rome to accuse Florus—an intention that
2204
This is the only attested example of this word prompts Agrippa’s speech (2.342-43).
2208
(ἐξονειδισµός) in all ancient Greek literature, quite The verb is in the present tense, presumably
possibly of Josephus’ coinage. We propose “echoes” [of because Agrippa is dispensing gnomic wisdom about
scandal] to represent the prefix: a drawing out or enlarge- the way of the world, rather than a prescription specific
ment. Although the unprefixed form is amply attested to the Roman governors.
2209
elsewhere, Josephus has it only once (Ant. 19.319). Josephus’ Agrippa rhetorically adopts the approach
Although unique, the noun is a natural formation of a of Prov 15:1 (“A soft answer turns away wrath”; cf.
result-noun from the verb ἐξονειδίζω, which is found in 25:21-22) and of Jesus in the gospels: “Do not resist
the tragedians (Sophocles, Philoc. 382; Oed. col. 990; the worthless fellow: If someone strikes you on the
El. 288; Euripides, Phoen. 1676; Iph. aul. 305) and right cheek, turn the other one to him also” (Matt 5.39).
occasionally in the Hellenistic historians, but noticeably Josephus presents this, however, not as universally valid
favored by Josephus (6.124; Ant. 5.65; 15.81) and his advice, but as Agrippa’s clever effort to calm the masses
contemporary, Plutarch (9 times). while quietly rejecting their demand for an embassy to
2205
Or “slightest mistakes” (τῶν µικρῶν ἁµαρτηµά- Rome (2.342-43), which is the standard recourse for
των). Cf. Pythagoras (Carm. aur. 7): “Do not hate dealing with oppressive governors. From the opening
your friend for the sake of some minor shortcoming episode of War (1.35-38) Josephus illustrates and empha-
(ἁµαρτάδος εἵνεκα µικρῆς)”; cf. Isocrates, Call. 43; sizes Judean military valor, aroused by a foreign ruler’s
Xenophon, Mem. 3.9.7; Anab. 5.8.20; Plato, Lach. 184b; oppression. Even in the case of Rome, he has thus far
book two 273

352 Stipulate that the underlings2211 of the Romans are incorrigibly2212 harsh. In no way
do all Romans injure you—certainly not Caesar, against whom you are choosing war. For
it is not [the case] that any worthless [fellow]2213 has come as a result of instruction from
them;2214 nor, at any rate, are those from the west looking closely upon those in the east. 2215
It is by no means easy there to hear quickly from here.2216 353 Indeed, it is perverse to
make war against many because of one person; because of trivial causes against those who
are so great—and when they do not even know what we are blaming them for!2217
354 There might indeed be a swift redress2218 of our complaints, for the same procurator
does not remain in perpetuity, and it is likely that the successors to come will be more
restrained.2219 Once the war has been set in motion,2220 however, it is not easy either to
put it aside or to sustain it2221 without calamities.2222
355 Certainly, the longing for freedom2223 now is untimely; it was necessary to struggle
in the past for the sake of not throwing it away.2224 The experience of slavery2225 is indeed

2219
recounted the procurators’ outrages with deep feeling, This reflection anticipates Agrippa’s later advice
describing with evident sympathy the efforts of Judean to wait patiently for a new governor (2.406). Those later
leaders to indict bad procurators (2.240-46, 280, 333). appeals, however, will immediately undo the good will
Agrippa, however, is caught between his refusal to sup- he has won with his long speech, and will result in his
port an embassy and his knowledge that this will likely expulsion from Jerusalem. In light of Josephus’ narrative
increase anger (2.343); hence his extraordinary advice to this point it does not seem an unreasonable hope—
(on the mass political level) to turn the other cheek. governors as recent as Festus, in the early 60s, having
2210
This is the only occurrence of διατροπή in Jose- performed ably (2.271)—, though the general run from
phus. It is a Polybian term, attested before Josephus only Cumanus onward have offered little promise of better
in Polybius (1.16.4, 42.11, 53.7; 3.53.5, 85.8; 5.57.7, governance. Agrippa is evidently trying urgently to calm
60.10; 8.5.3; 10.14.4; 11.6.9; 16.8.10, 33.4) and Diodo- popular sentiment by any available means.
2220
rus (17.41.7; 19.81.2; 32.6.3); cf. also Dio Chrysostom, The collocation κινέω . . . πόλεµον is common
Or. 38.4. in War (7 of its 10 occurrences in Josephus); see also
2211
See the note at 2.41. This word (ὑπηρέτης) for 2.362 (still within Agrippa’s speech) and 2.408 (Jose-
those normally called procurators or governors, who phus’ editorial comment shortly afterward). It counts
indeed hold complete power over non-citizen local popu- as distinctive Josephan phrasing because, although it is
lations, is not merely descriptive but pejorative, in keep- found in earlier authors (Thucydides 6.34.4; Plato, Resp.
ing with the tone of the sentence. 566e; Demosthenes, Phil. 3.47; Posidonius in Athenaeus
2212
The adverb (ἀνηκέστως) is Josephan language. 12.542b; Diodorus 29.7.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 8.2.2,
See the note to “irremediable suffering” at 2.233. 4.4; Memnon, Frag. 18, 31, 36 [Müller]), they do not
2213
See the notes at 2.156, 273. use it nearly as often.
2214 2221
That is, their wretched behavior was certainly not Although Josephus uses βαστάζω 32 times, 30
part of their instruction from Rome. of these are in Ant. 1-15; this is the only occurrence in
2215
Lit., “Nor at any rate are those from the evening- War .
2222
land (οἱ ἀφ᾿ ἑσπέρας) looking closely upon those under A programmatic term (συµφορά), enhancing the
the rising sun (τοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν ἀνατολὴν).” tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9;
2216
Information would normally travel between Rome 2.286. The remarkable trait of the most respected aris-
and Judea by sea, which was much faster than overland tocratic leaders, who will all be out of the picture by the
routes. For the uncertainties of such communication middle of War , is that they (alone) would have been able
routes, especially outside the sailing season, see 2.203: to pursue either outcome—a forceful campaign or terms
news of Gaius’ own death, on one ship, allegedly reached of surrender—with honor and dignity (cf. 4.320).
2223
Judea 27 days before the same emperor’s death warrant Josephus turns to the second of the preliminary
for his Syrian legate. themes introduced at 2.349. See the note to “freedom,”
2217
Swain (1996: 200) points out that Dio’s harsh a bedrock theme of the War and of Agrippa’s speech,
criticisms of Roman governors do not implicate the at 2.259.
2224
princeps in Rome. Josephus’ Agrippa accepts the general ancient
2218
See the note at 2.323. premise that it is noble to defend one’s people to the
274 book two

Too late for harsh, and the struggle not to initiate this is just.2226 356 Yet the one who has once been
freedom
subdued and then resists is not a freedom-lover but an obstinate slave.2227 At that time,
accordingly, when Pompey was setting foot in the region,2228 it was necessary to do every-
thing for the sake of not admitting the Romans.2229 357 But our2230 forebears and their

extent of one’s ability; some of the following examples main actors—as the larger freedom motif. Florus has
mention other nations that did oppose the Romans for used it sarcastically (2.299). In bk. 4 it will be used 3
some time (notably Gaul [373], Spain [374], Germany times in rapid succession: by Ananus’ colleague Jesus,
[377]). But the Judeans did not even do that at the appro- praising the virtue but rejecting its applicability to the
priate time (63 BCE). Cf. his character’s speech at 5.365: Idumeans, who claim it as they arrive to assist the reb-
“If indeed it was noble to fight for the sake of freedom, els (4.246); by the narrator Josephus in his eulogy of
it was necessary to do this at the first.” Ananus and Jesus, though he makes it clear that the
2225
See the note to “slave” at 2.349. freedom-lover Ananus preferred to end the revolt peace-
2226
Given Josephus’ [Agrippa’s] dependence upon fully (4.319); and by the narrator in relation to another
Herodotus for much of what follows, the audience upper-class victim of the rebels (4.335). The appearance
might imagine a tacit critique here in relation to Hero- of the term here drives home how free of such nuance
dotus’ theme of the (prevented) “enslavement of Hellas” or reinterpretation is Agrippa’s use of “freedom.” For the
(5.49; 7.168, 235; 8.22, 100, 142, 144; 9.45, 60): even purpose of this speech to the masses, he simply accepts
the Judeans’ ancestors were not like the Spartans, but that “freedom” in the obvious sense is long lost, that
accepted foreign enslavement. As the Persian Xerxes Judeans are now slaves to Rome, and that this situation
contemplates the invasion of Greece, he consults his must be accepted. Agrippa thus recalls the harsh realities
exiled Spartan advisor Demaratus, who in a moment of of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue (5.84-113) and perhaps
frank speech advises him (Herodotus 7.102.2-3) that, also reformulates the values articulated by Virgil (Aen.
whereas the reactions of other Greeks may be unpredict- 6.853): the art of Roman government consists in keep-
able, the Spartans “first, will never accept terms from ing the world in a state of peace by sparing the defeated
you that bring slavery to Hellas; second, they will con- and crushing the proud (parcere subiectis et debellare
front you in battle even if all the other Greeks should superbos).
2228
side with you. As for the number of men there are who In 63 BCE, while settling the eastern Mediterra-
can do this, do not ask. They will fight you whether they nean after ending the pirate scourge and chasing Mithra-
field [merely] a thousand, or less than this, or indeed dates VI into hiding (where he would soon die), Pompey
more.” The battle of Thermopylae (below) would certify the Great inserted himself into the ongoing squabble
Demaratus’ assessment: the Spartiates fight to the death between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, sons of Alex-
against overwhelming numbers to prevent the enslave- ander Janneus and Queen Alexandra, who had appealed
ment of their homeland. Similarly, the speech of Her- to his general Scaurus. Although Scaurus had initially
mocrates the Syracusan, when he realizes that Athens favored Aristobulus, Pompey reportedly became exasper-
plans to invade his homeland: “It is entirely excusable ated at his behavior and endorsed Hyrcanus (ultimately
for the Athenians to seek to expand and to look out for as high priest, not king). The latter’s followers admit-
their interests. I fault not those who want to rule, but ted Pompey’s forces to Jerusalem, but he then had to
those are ready to knuckle under. For it has always been storm the temple compound, where Archelaus’ partisans
as much a part of man’s nature to protect himself against had barricaded themselves. It was Pompey who thus put
aggression as it is to rule those who give in to him” Jerusalem and its land under tribute to Rome. Curiously,
(Thucydides 4.61). Plutarch’s contemporary Life of Pompey does not men-
2227
See the note to “slave” at 2.349 and the simi- tion the general’s involvement in Judea (except inciden-
lar expression (given to Titus) at 4.96. This recalls the tally, after the fact: 45.2, 4), but has him go straight from
advice of Mago the Bruttian to the Carthaginians (Poly- Syria to Nabatea (41-42). If Josephus’ Roman audience
bius 36.5.2-3): although it would have been right for did not know the story independently (cf. Tacitus, Hist.
them to consider whether they wished to obey Rome’s 5.9: “The first Roman who subdued the Judeans . . .
demands before they submitted, to do so after submitting was Gnaeus Pompeius”), they would know it from War ’s
was ignoble. Josephus’ character will make the same prologue (1.19) and the detailed account in his earlier
point, in much the same language (5.365). narrative (1.125-58).
2229
This word (φιλελεύθερος), which Josephus uses only Josephus elsewhere considers it a sign of weak-
in War , is as highly charged—and contested among the ness that the Judean leaders could not sort out their own
book two 275

kings2231—much better positioned than you, in finances, in bodies, and in souls2232—did

not hold out against a small fraction of the Roman force.2233 And you, who have inherited
the [art of] submitting as a tradition, who are so inferior in your affairs to those who first
submitted,2234 you are setting yourselves against the entire imperium Romanum?2235

2233
dynastic affairs, with Hyrcanus II turning to the Arabs In 67 BCE the Senate had given Pompey, along
while Aristobulus II appealed to Rome. War ’s prologue with greater imperium, a massive army and navy for
remarks that “the descendants of [the Hasmoneans], by combating piracy: 120,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, 500
generating factions in pursuit of the kingship, drew the ships, with 24 legates as commanders (Seager 2002: 45;
Romans and Pompey into their affairs” (1.19). The nar- Plutarch, Pomp. 26; slightly smaller forces in Appian,
rative likewise blames internal strife (στάσις) for the Mithr. 94). Although it is unclear how many legions and
ease of Pompey’s assault (1.142), and in a later speech Syrian auxiliaries he brought with him into Judea, it is
Josephus’ character will deplore the madness (µανία) of reported as a large force (1.133; Ant. 14.48); after taking
this strife (5.396): “God subjected to the Romans those Jerusalem, however, he reportedly left the entire region
who were not worthy of freedom!” (Syria to the Euphrates and Palestine to the Egyptian
Josephus’ assumption that a state’s leaders must sort border) under two legions, with Scaurus as governor, as
out their internal tensions without involving greater he returned to Rome (1.157). However large Pompey’s
powers matches the general perspective of Greek writ- force in Judea was, the rhetorical claim here that it was
ers from Polybius (e.g., 24.11.6-8, 13.1-8) to Plutarch only a fraction of the Roman army, whereas the rebels are
(Mor. [Praec.] 814f-815e): states must try to retain as ostensibly courting a conflict with Rome’s entire army
much autonomy and constitutional freedom as possible. (next sentence), is somewhat misleading: the 4 legions
Polybius’ Philopoemen addresses a situation similar to that would fight the Judeans in 67-70 were a smaller
the one at issue here: the Romans are in the region and proportion of the total at the time of Nero’s death (viz.,
their domination is inevitable. But, he demands, “Should a 7th of 28 legions) than the proportion of the total that
we not rather, as far as it is in our power, wrestle with Pompey’s forces represented in 63 BCE.
2234
them, and hold out until we are completely exhausted? This paragraph is closely paralleled in Josephus’
. . . I know too well that the time will come when the later speech (5.395-97): “From what point did our slav-
Greeks will be forced to yield complete obedience to ery begin?. . . God subjected to the Romans those who
Rome; but do we wish this time to be as near as possible were not worthy of freedom. They gave themselves up
or as distant as possible? Surely as distant as possible.” after being besieged for 3 months, though innocent of
2230
MSS AL and Latin have “your,” in keeping with such offenses as yours . . . and possessing much better
Agrippa’s general 2nd-person rhetorical stance in this resources for the war.”
2235
speech, over against his allegedly war-crazed audience. See the note to this phrase, which reappears at
But here the 1st-person plural, favored by MSS PMVRC, 2.362 and 385 (in the same speech) at 1.3. Runnalls
also fits the subtler logic of his argument: he is indeed (1997: 748) notes that Josephus’ ending of the nar-
speaking now of “our forebears” with a certain respect. ratio with a question is an effective way of leading
See the similar MS problems below (and the note to “our into the next major part of the speech: the citation of
[people]” at 2.362). proofs (confirmatio)—mainly showing the foolishness
2231
Taken precisely, the plural is ironic: the simultane- of opposing Rome by means of examples drawn from
ous claim by Hyrcanus (designated king by his mother peoples who, though more powerful than the Judeans
1.120) and his younger brother Aristobulus (who declared (so, much better positioned for revolt), often tolerate
himself king, 1.117) to be “kings” was what facilitated an even greater burden. This section, which she sees as
Roman domination of Judea (see preceding notes). But continuing to 2.387, is marked by an effectively mixed
perhaps Josephus’ Agrippa refers less carefully to “the style: strung-along descriptions of the nations that now
time of our kings”—i.e., the period of independence. submit to Rome, punctuated by short periods addressing
2232
Although the “bodies and souls” comparison may the audience (Runnalls 1997: 749).
be dismissed as the rhetoric of the “good old days,” the The same list of nations will be briefly reprised by
general point remains that the Hasmonean state, hav- Titus, in similar language (6.329-33), illustrating Jose-
ing flourished independently (albeit with alliances) for phus’ creative control over both speeches. The survey of
decades, was better placed to resist foreign occupation nations also anticipates Aristides’ 2nd-cent. CE To Rome,
than those who have been subject to Roman taxation and though without the adulation of Rome found there.
occupation for generations.
276 book two

Tour of nations 358 Even the Athenians2236—those who at one time handed over their city even to
enslaved to fire2237 for the freedom2238 of the Greeks;2239 those who pursued like a runaway on a single
Rome
ship2240 the arrogant Xerxes,2241 who had sailed across land and made a footpath across
the sea,2242 not yielding to the depths but leading the army that was broader than Europe;

2236
Josephus’ Agrippa turns to a question he has antic- make an attempt on the Peloponnese) marched away
ipated at 2.348, after his distinction of complaints against overland; they all crossed the Hellespont on ships when
offensive procurators and the struggle for freedom, and they found their bridges badly damaged. The alternative
raised again in the preceding sentences (2.355-57), viz.: version (8.118) claims that Xerxes left his army behind,
Who are you to make war on Rome? Lindner (1972: and with a small Persian escort boarded a Phoenician
22) regards this initial, brief list of nations (2.358- ship (hence “runaway”?) for Asia. Then, in a Jonah-like
61a) as comparable in form to the longer survey below episode, in order to lighten the vessel during a terrible
(2.365-87), which similarly illustrates the point just storm he ordered his countrymen to leap overboard; on
made (there, 2.361-64). landing, he presented the captain with a gold crown (for
It would make sense to begin a survey of better- having saved his life) and then had him beheaded (for
positioned peoples who accept Roman supremacy with having lost so many Persian lives).
2241
the Athenians: the most important and influential former Xerxes, son of Darius Hystaspis and Atossa,
imperial power in the Mediterranean (after their leading became king of Persia (485-465 BCE) when Egypt was
role in the Greek defeat of the Persians), whose culture in revolt from Persian hegemony. His first main action
remains pervasive in Josephus’ day, yet who are now was to subdue Egypt (284), after which—largely at the
fully integrated into the Roman empire. Under the prin- urging of “medizing” Greek élites and members of his
cipate Athens remained a free city, exempt from tribute court—he began 4 years of preparations for a renewal of
and other imperial burdens and subject to its own coun- his father’s campaigns in Greece, with an army reported
cil; it was allowed to keep vast amounts of its hinterland to number over 5 million (Herodotus 7.103). His extraor-
(Attica). Yet this freedom was clearly given at the plea- dinary pride is portrayed by Herodotus in several places:
sure of the emperor, and as so often, native rule brought see examples in the previous note, as also at Herodotus
its own grievances and even street riots (cf. Mommsen 7.101-104, where the king bursts into laughter at the sug-
1887: 1.300-303). gestion that Greek armies comprising free citizens could
2237
Herodotus (8.40-41, 50-54) tells of the Athenians’ possibly stand up to his massive forces of men fighting
abandoning their city (as did other local populations) in in fear of their master.
2242
the face of Xerxes’ advance, fleeing to Troezen, Aegina, This is an artful, almost poetic and provisionally
and Salamis; then, of the Persians’ sack and burning of encomiastic, summary of Xerxes’ feats in cutting the
Athens. Athos canal, on the one hand, and bridging the Helles-
2238
See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the pont with pontoons for his armies to cross from Asia
War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. For freedom as to Europe, on the other. The 2 km canal, which has left
the ultimate Athenian motivation in the wars with Persia, no visible remains (though archaeologists believe they
see Herodotus 8.143. have located it underground: Isserlin, Jones et al. 1994),
2239
Athens was a prominent part of the alliance of was reportedly cut in 483-480 BCE across the narrow-
Hellenes who had not “Medized” in the wake of Xerxes’ est part of the Athos peninsula in N Greece (Herodotus
advance, braced against his attempted invasions in 480 7.22-24, 37, 117, 122). Herodotus (7.24) considered it
BCE. Although the fleet that faced Xerxes at Salamis an unnecessary act of pride, for ships could have been
was led by the Spartan Eurybiades son of Euryclides hauled overland for this distance. The footpath across
(Herodotus 8.42), the Athenians contributed by far the the sea refers to Xerxes’ famous pair of pontoon bridges
largest number of ships (Herodotus 8.40-47), and their across the Dardanelles strait in 480 BCE—replaced after
generals Themistocles and Aristides reportedly exercised destruction by a storm (Herodotus 7.33-36). Herodo-
effective leadership, after Eurybiades wavered and con- tus marvels at his pride here too, in punishing the sea
templated abandoning the scene to defend the Pelopon- with 300 lashes, branding, and various curses (7.35).
nese (Herodotus 8.55-63, 124). This convenient pair illustrating the ostensible pinnacle
2240
Josephus chooses the unflattering alternative of human power realized by Xerxes—to make men sail
account briefly mentioned by Herodotus. Herodotus’ across land or walk across the sea, at will—is adduced
main story (8.107-17, esp. 110-17) relates that the by Dio Chrysostom with the moral qualifier that the Per-
Greeks opted not to pursue Xerxes, and that he (hav- sian king could hardly be called most powerful if he was
ing left Mardonius with selections from the army to unable to control even his own anger (Or. 3.29-34).
book two 277

having broken Asia so mighty2243 near tiny2244 Salamis2245—they are now slaves to the
Romans,2246 and the orders from Italy administer the governess of Greece.2247
359 And the Lacedemonians,2248 after Thermopylae, Plataea,2249 and Agesilaus’2250 hav-
ing explored Asia,2251 are fond of the same masters; 360 and the Macedonians, though
still conjuring up2252 Philip2253 and envisioning their domination of the world2254 being

2243
Among many others the Phoenicians and the Ioni- Agesilaus). The Spartans turn up throughout the works of
ans, from Asia’s W coast, had joined Xerxes’ Persian Josephus as the accepted benchmark of social, political,
armies as they marched W. and martial virtues.
2244 2249
Josephus normally uses the more common µικρός, That is: in spite of battles such as these, which
which Niese prints also here (favoring MS P); but the helped create the Spartan legend. Although Thermopy-
principle of the “more difficult reading” suggests σµικρός lae, Salamis, and Plataea were a sequence of battle sites,
(in MSS AMVR), which Josephus appears to use oth- Josephus’ Agrippa artfully distinguishes those that fall
erwise only at Ant. 14.71. The difference is significant to the Spartans’ credit from those claimed by the Athe-
because Josephus’ Agrippa is rehearsing a story from nians. At Thermopylae (gateway to the Greek heartland
Herodotus, who probably (depending upon text-critical of Aetolia, Boeotia, and Attica), in 480 BCE the Spartan
judgments) uses the latter form exclusively—a neat king Leonidas fought to the death against the advancing
flourish on Josephus’ part, for a knowing audience. Persians, with 300 Spartiates and other picked men, after
2245
The island off the coast of Attica to which many dismissing most of his Greek allies. Herodotus (7.224)
of the Athenians had fled in abandoning their city before makes much of the heroism displayed by both king and
the Persian onslaught (480 BCE), where the Hellenic soldiers, even claiming to have learned all of their names.
fleets put in, and where Xerxes suffered his major naval The following year at Plataea (in SE Boeotia, about 50
defeat, as he reportedly looked on from a throne on the miles/80 km SSE of Thermopylae), a force led by the
hillside of Mt. Aegaleus on the mainland (Herodotus Spartan Pausanias finally halted the Persian incursion.
8.50-96). It is noteworthy that Josephus includes this Herodotus calls this “the finest victory of all those we
battle under Athenian achievements. Herodotus remarks know of ” (9.64).
2250
(8.94) that whereas the Athenians claimed sole bragging Agesilaus (444-360 BCE), second son of King
rights, because the (Spartan-allied) Corinthians had fled Zeuxidamus, came to the throne in 400 BCE upon the
before the heat of battle, the Corinthians claim (with death of his older brother Agis, through the influence of
general support) that they remained and faced the worst the general Lysander (trumping the claim of Alcibiades’
of it. illegitimate son by the Spartan queen). His remarkable
2246
See the note to “slave” at 2.349. This “slavery” to life, which required him to overcome a significant physi-
Rome on the part of the Greek cities is (within the narra- cal handicap, is the subject of surviving biographies by
tive) for the benefit of Agrippa’s audience in Jerusalem; Xenophon, who fought with him, Cornelius Nepos, and
he uses their language to compare other famous cities. most famously Plutarch.
2251
As we see clearly in Josephus’ contemporaries Plutarch Agesilaus’ impressive campaign in Asia (398-
and Dio, the Greek élites themselves had long since 396 BCE), reportedly urged by his general Lysander
come to terms with Roman hegemony and reinterpreted to protect the latter’s clients from Persian domination,
this political slavery in advantageous ways. occupies a prominent place in the biographies by Xeno-
2247
Athens emerged from the Persian wars with phon (Ages. 1.6-35; 3.3-6) and Plutarch (Ages. 6-15).
proven naval supremacy. She became the president of On Plutarch’s narrative (and incidentally Xenophon’s),
the new Delian League (from 478 BCE), which, although see Shipley 1997: 116-210; on Agesilaus himself, Car-
it was a real alliance at the beginning, gradually took on tledge 1987.
2252
the dimensions of an Athenian empire; hence “governess This is the only occurrence of the verb φαντάζω
of Greece.” Athens’ dominance led to the Peloponnesian (here middle) in Josephus, and we may assume that he
wars described by Thucydides. uses it with intent. With the double sense of “bringing
2248
It makes good sense for Josephus’ Agrippa to before one’s eyes, imagining” and “seeing or dealing
turn next to the Spartans, who defeated Athens in the with ghosts (phantasms),” it is well chosen to convey a
Peloponnesian wars, which followed the repulsion of picture of Macedonians nostalgic for their glorious past
Persia, and whose reputation for martial virtue and dis- while living under the reality of Roman rule.
2253
cipline was unparalleled (cf. Xenophon, Agesilaus, Spar- Presumably, Philip II (382-336 BCE), who made
tan Constitution; Aristotle, Pol. 1263a-1275b et passim; Macedon the great power in Greece by defeating regional
Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans, Lycurgus, Lysander, challengers and establishing control of cities to the S,
278 book two

disseminated2255 by Alexander,2256 tolerate such a great reversal2257 and make obeisance2258

before those to whom fortune has passed over.2259
361 But myriads of2260 nations that are full of very bold talk2261 in connection with

through a combination of military skill—using the regional revolts, Alexander moved into India in 327,
revised Macedonian phalanx armed with the 6-meter where two years of vicious campaigning left him with
pike (sarisa)—and a diplomatic network. a chest wound and exhausted troops. In 325 he began a
2254
Although the participle οἰκουµένη had a range of return to bases in the Persian heartland, where he and his
uses, it was typically supplied with an article to desig- officers took wives from the Persian nobility. Alexander
nate the “inhabited earth” (see Munn 2006: 178-202 for died after a brief illness on June 10, 323 BCE.
2257
early Greek usage). In speaking of Roman hegemony, Reversal (µεταβολή [of fortune as here, or of
writers could either exaggeratedly identify it with the circumstances]) is a basic theme of Josephus’ War ; see
inhabited earth (cf. 2.388: “all those in the inhabited the notes to “circumstances” at 2.113 and to “upheaval”
earth are Romans”) or, conceding the known regions at 1.5.
2258
beyond Roman control, distinguish the two (also in This verb (προσκυνέω) is singularly appropriate
2.388: “unless . . . beyond the Euphrates”). The heavy here. Although it occurs nearly 100 times in Josephus,
use of the term in Agrippa’s speech (9 times, only else- sometimes with a more general sense, it refers most
where in bk. 2 at 2.580) anticipates Aristides’ 2nd-cent. specifically to the practice of prostration (or possibly
CE oration To Rome, which uses it 18 times to similar the blowing of reverential kisses) before Oriental kings
effect: to speak of Rome’s universal dominion. It was a as quasi-divine powers (cf. Herodotus 1.119.1; 2.121;
singularly appropriate term for Josephus’ Agrippa to use 8.118); Josephus often uses it pejoratively (see Feld-
of Alexander, whose empire had an unprecedented reach man’s note to “later” at Ant. 2.195 in BJP 3). Alexan-
through Persia and all the way to India: οἰκουµένη was a der received this honor in the East and controversially
concept closely linked with Alexander (Polybius 8.10.11; sought to persuade his Macedonian colleagues at Bactra
Diodorus 30.9.3; Strabo 1.3.3; [Demetrius], Eloc. 283; to join in, a request that provoked indignation and may
Plutarch, Alex. 52.5; 71.4; Arrian. Anab. 3.16.2). Sha- have precipitated the death of his associate Callisthenes
har (2004: 256-67) argues that, although Josephus often (Arrian, Anab. 4.10.5-12.5; cf. Walbank 1992: 38-39,
follows Strabo in putting a Roman-political spin on 42-43). Josephus’ Agrippa will use the term twice more
οἰκουµένη (i.e., that Rome rules virtually all of it), his in this speech, for the complete subjection to Rome now
deeper personal and “Jewish” view of God’s hegemony required of former powers or states once in thrall to Per-
over the inhabited earth shines through in places. sia (2.366, 380).
2255 2259
Given the rarity of the compound verb παρασπείρω The Polybian (e.g., Polybius 1.1.2, 4.1-3) and
(attested only 7 times before Josephus, in obscure frag- thereafter common (cf. Plutarch, On the Fortune of the
ments except for Strabo 14.5.5; 17.3.9), it is remarkable Romans) association of Rome’s hegemony with fortune—
that War has it twice (also 7.43), in both cases combining alongside her power, strength, or virtue—is characteristic
the verb with ἡ οἰκουµένη. Although a small point, this of Josephus (2.373, 387, 3.354, 359, 438; 5.120; 6.399-
tends to reinforce the connection between War 1-6 and 400; 7.203, 231; Ant. 20.70). See the note to “fortune”
bk. 7 (see Introduction). at 2.373 below. The specific construction that fortune
2256
Alexander III (356-323 BCE), “the Great,” son of has “passed over” (µεταβαίνω) to Rome reoccurs in a
Philip II of Macedon and Olympias, famously tutored by prayer and a speech made by Josephus’ character (3.354;
Aristotle, became king at the age of 20 upon his father’s 5.367). Implicit in the verb, as in Agrippa’s speech here
death (336 BCE). He led a massive army, featuring the (explicit at 5.367), is that fortune’s gift of hegemony
unstoppable Macedonian phalanx, on a campaign against is not permanent, but visits various nations—and will
Persia (under Darius III), which had retained its dom- continue changing its favorites in the future.
2260
ination of Asia Minor. A major victory at Issus (333 Or “countless”; lit. 10,000 or multiples of
BCE) put the Persian forces in flight, giving Alexander 10,000.
2261
a clear run to the Euphrates, except for resistance at See the note to “frankness of speech” at 2.276.
Tyre and Gaza, which he crushed. After taking Egypt Frank speech (παρρησία) and freedom (ἐλευθερία)
without resistance (332-331) he moved swiftly into the were natural and frequent correlatives in Greek, espe-
Persian heartland, via Mesopotamia, occupying Persis in cially classical Athenian political rhetoric; Plato (Resp.
the winter of 331-330 and driving Darius from Ecbatana 557b; Leg. 649b) observes that παρρησία is the principal
(after which the Great King was murdered by Persian trait of the free person or city; cf. 4.358; Ant. 11.39, the
attendants) in the summer of 330. After suppressing latter contrasting the slave with the free person, who
book two 279

“freedom”2262 nevertheless yield. Do you alone scorn2263 to be slaves to2264 those who
have subdued everything? In what sort of army, in what sort of weapons are you trusting?
Where is your force that will seize the Roman seas,2265 and where are the treasuries that
will quite suffice2266 for the offensives?2267
362 Do you believe, as it seems, that you are setting this war in motion2268 against
Egyptians or against Arabs?2269 Will you not take into full view the Roman imperium?2270
Will you not take the measure of your own feebleness?2271 Were not our [people]2272 often
weaker even than those of the nearby nations, whereas their [the Romans’] strength is
invincible across the world?2273 363 But indeed they sought something rather more than
even this. For the whole Euphrates2274 in the east did not suffice at all2275 for them, nor
the northerly Ister,2276 or again southerly Libya,2277 which had been explored all the way

2268
alone may speak freely. See also Euripides, Hippol. 422; For this collocation see the note to “set in motion”
Isocrates, Arch. 97; Areop. 20; Demosthenes in Stobaeus, at 2.354.
2269
Flor. 13.17; Aeschines, Fals. leg. 70; Theophrastus, Conflicts with the Nabatean kingdom E of the
Char. 28.6; Polybius 4.31.4; 18.14.9; Diodorus 14.65.4, Jordan were part of the recent Judean past: War 1.89-90,
66.5; 32.26.2; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.46.4; 6.38.1; 364-85; cf. Ant. 18.109-15. Egypt had been a Roman
7.25.2, 31.2, 35.2, 48.3; 11.5.3; 14.3.2; Philo, Praem. province for a century.
2270
124; Prob. 95, 12; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77/78.37, 45; See the note to this phrase at 1.3; Agrippa’s speech
Lucian, Nigr. 15. uses it 3 times (also 2.357, 385).
2262 2271
See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the Runnalls (1997: 749) points out the neat bal-
War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. ance and homoioteleuton (similar endings: ἡγεµονίαν,
2263
The only other occurrence of ἀδοξέω in War 2 ἀσθένειαν) of these antithetical clauses.
2272
comes near the end of Agrippa’s confirmatio: the Egyp- MSS MLC and Latin have “your,” which would
tians do not scorn the Roman imperium (2.385). Of the logically continue the 2nd-person address in the preceding
verb’s 12 appearances in Josephus, 11 are in War (1-5). rhetorical questions. But the 1st-person plural, attested
It is not a common verb before Josephus (apparently by MSS PAVR, makes perhaps better sense, as Agrippa
absent from Homer, tragedy, classical and Hellenistic turns to speak of Judean (not rebel) forces in the past,
historians except Diodorus 15.9.4, though found 3 times in keeping with 2.357 (see note to “our” there). It is
in Demosthenes—Fals. leg. 103, 115, 118), but it begins easier to understand scribes changing an original“our”
to appear frequently from Josephus’ time (e.g., about 10 to “your,” for consistency of rhetorical posture, than the
times in Plutarch). reverse process.
2264 2273
Or “serve,” but the speech makes an ongoing and Or “inhabited [earth].” See the note to this word
hard-headed contrast between the mirage of political at 2.360.
2274
freedom and the current, acknowledged but unavoidable Possibly “the Euphrates [did not suffice] for a
state of slavery (see the note to “freedom” at 2.346, to boundary,” if one follows Destinon’s emendation of the
“slaves” at 2.349). MSS’s ὅλος to ὅρος (followed by Thackeray, Vitucci,
2265
Roman domination of the sea lanes had been hard and Pelletier). Since the text does not require emenda-
won, chiefly with Pompey’s famous removal of piracy tion, however, where indeed “the whole” of the long and
from the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Ironically, at mighty Euphrates makes good rhetorical sense (as not
3.414-27 Josephus will relate the attempt by more than sufficing for the Romans), I follow the reading of the
4,000 Judean rebels based in rebuilt Joppa to dominate MSS (with M-B).
2275
the E coast of the Mediterranean by piracy, with ships See the note to “suffice” at 2.361. The exagger-
they had built themselves, before a powerful storm sank ated tone of what follows is made clear by 3.107, where
their fleet and hurled survivors into the waiting spears in a different rhetorical context Josephus is happy to
of the Romans. name these same boundaries as the (remarkable enough)
2266
Of 26 occurrences of the verbs for “suffice” (forms limits of the empire.
of ἀρκέω) in War, nearly a 6th are in Agrippa’s speech 2276
The Danube River, together with the Rhine, formed
(also 2.363, 374, 375), which drives home the point that the empire’s northern limit (the defeat of Varus in 9 CE
the Judeans do not have what it takes to oppose Rome. having caused a retrenchment to the Rhine); cf. 3.107.
2267
See the note at 2.329: this is the 3rd and final use Rivers play an important role in the Roman conception
of ἐπιβολή in War 2, all falling in a brief space. of empire, conquest (in the remarkable achievement rep-
280 book two

to the uninhabited2278 parts, and Gadeira to the west;2279 but they sought another world2280
beyond Oceanus,2281 and they brought over their weapons all the way to the previously
unexplored2282 Brettani.2283

2282
resented by taking territory across rivers), and limits: The adjective ἀνιστόρητος occurs only here in
Livy 26.21.7-10; 37.59.2-5; Propertius 3.11.41-42; Vir- Josephus. Though unattested before his time except in
gil, Georg. 4.509, 560-61; Aen. 6.789-805; 8.724-28; Polybius (12.3.2—on Timaeus’ ignorance of Libya) and
Persius 6.43-7; Pliny Nat. 5.36-37; Tacitus, Ann. 2.41; Philo of Byzantium (Bel. p. 78 [Thevenot]), it appears
Juvenal 10.147-87. in his contemporaries Epictetus (Arrian, Diatr. 1.6.24),
2277
I.e., N Africa from Egypt to the Straits of Gibral- Plutarch (Mor. [Quaest. conv.] 731c, 733b), and Dio (Or.
tar. See the note at 2.115. 12.59). For the meaning here, see the next note.
2278 2283
Or “uninhabitable, not to be inhabited” (ἀοίκητος); Britons: see further 2.378-80 for Britain after
I translate thus because of the contrast with “inhabited Claudius (in Agrippa’s and Josephus’ time). If we take
[earth]” (“world”) in the previous sentence. The same “previously unexplored” seriously, the speaker must
contrast reappears in the speech at 2.388 and again at have in view Caesar’s invasions of 55 and 54 BCE or
5.218. That this adjective appears only in War (also 2.388; be conflating these with Claudius’ recent invasion. Cf.
4.199, 453; 5.218) confirms again Josephus’ authorial Suetonius, speaking of Caesar (Jul. 25: “He also invaded
control over Agrippa’s speech: it shares the diction and the Britons, a people formerly unknown [Britannos igno-
rhetorical contrasts of the narrative as a whole. Before tos antea]”). Caesar’s first campaign came near the end
Josephus, these words are contrasted mainly by Aristotle of the sailing season (August 25, 55 CE), after heavy
(Meteor. 362b), Diodorus (3.38.2; 5.76.1; 40.7.2), Philo fighting in Gaul, with two legions (VII and X) and 80
(Mos. 1.195), and Strabo (2.1.13, 5.5, 5.34; 17.2.1), the transport ships. Though intended only as a brief first
last of which seems most likely to have influenced Jose- encounter for gathering intelligence (Caesar claims), it
phus, given the shared geographical interest. was apparently something of a debacle, from the land-
2279
I.e., Gades (mod. Cadiz in Spain), mentioned at ing under heavy fire to misjudged currents and weather
Ant. 1.122 as a place settled by Noah’s grandsons. It is that prevented the landing of cavalry, to the battering of
a well chosen point to mark the western extremity of the the anchored fleet by misunderstood tides, to the near
empire and the inhabited earth, because it was the last loss of the 7th legion and the hasty departure with sal-
significant city in the W, some way beyond the “Pillars vaged ships (Caesar, Bell. gall. 4.20-36). The second
of Hercules,” which represented the limits of the inhab- invasion (July 6, 54 BCE) was more carefully planned,
ited earth for most investigators (cf. 2.375, 382 below; using 800 transport ships and 4,000 Celtic cavalry in
so already Herodotus 4.8), the place or near the place addition to 5 of Caesar’s legions; though the commander
where Heracles had ventured to seize the red oxen of misjudged the tides, he managed to land his much larger
Geryon; the island continued to celebrate some sorts invasion force without immediate challenge. Although
of Heraclean festivals (Pausanias 10.4.6). Cades, facing he achieved some military success in combat S and just
the Atlantic, was an old Phoenician trading port. Strabo N of the Thames River, his anchored fleet was battered
(3.5.3-5, 7-10) gives a detailed description at the time of by inclement weather and he abandoned the island after
Augustus: populous, with around 500 Roman equestri- a couple of months, without much concrete to show
ans, but inhabiting a relatively small island, nearby islet, for it. The crucial achievements were glory for himself
and the mainland harbor opposite. and Rome, along with the precedent that this island in
2280
See the note to this word at 2.360. It seems that Oceanus could indeed be invaded (Caesar, Bell. gall.
Rome’s conquest of Britain is in view (see next note 5.8-23; Kamm 2006: 77-83). Plutarch enthuses, in lan-
and 2.378-79). guage similar to Josephus’ (Caes. 22.2-3): “he was the
2281
See the notes at 2.155: Oceanus was the body of first who launched a fleet into western Oceanus, and
water commonly thought to encircle the inhabited earth. sailed across the Atlantic Sea bringing an army for
Crossing it had been a terrifying prospect, also for the war” (sc. in contrast to Gallic traders). Nearly a century
Roman soldiers under Aulus Plautius during Claudius’ later Gaius Caligula planned another invasion, which
invasion of Britain in 43 CE (Dio 60.19.2). Their auda- occurred under Claudius in 43 CE, creating the condi-
cious achievement in challenging Oceanus is a point tions reflected in Agrippa’s speech.
that Agrippa will hammer home; he mentions Oceanus MS L awkwardly adds “Germans” to “Brettanians,”
4 times in this speech (also 2.371, 374, 378)—more than but this would seem to make no sense of the rhetoric
a third of all occurrences in Josephus. concerning another world beyond Oceanus.
book two 281

364 What, then?2284 Richer than the Galatai,2285 are you? Tougher than the Germani?2286
More intelligent than the Hellenes?2287 More numerous than all [others] throughout the
world?2288 What is that persuading something2289 that propels you against the Romans? 365
‘Being a slave2290 is painful!’ someone will say.2291 How much more for the Hellenes?2292
They, who take first place2293 in nobility of all those under the sun, and who apportion
among themselves2294 such a great region, give way2295 to six2296 fasces2297 of the Romans;

2284 2293
Or “Why, then?” Cf. 2.366, where τί is used in This is the reading of MS P, considered among the
both senses. Given the subsidiary questions, the tacit best (and followed by all modern editions). The rest of the
completion of the question might be: Why are you intent MS tradition, beginning with the Latin translation (sup-
on rebelling (when others put up with more)? Why do plying uidebantur), seems to reflect the copyists’ discom-
you think you can win (when others have so much more, fort with such unqualified praise of the Greeks—perhaps
but do not attempt rebellion)? Usually, however, inter- also because of Josephus’ harsh comments elsewhere
rogative τί in this speech has the sense of “What?” Thus: (e.g., 1.13-16; Life 40; Apion 1.27): those manuscripts
“What drives you to this rebellious attitude?” have the Greeks only “reputed” or “seeming” to be pre-
2285
The Gauls: see the note to “restive” at 1.5. The eminent, with a δοκοῦντες construction.
2294
wealth of Gaul is explored further at 2.371-72 below. Josephus will use the verb νέµω 3 times in this
2286
The size and strength of the Germans’ bodies is speech, the only occurrences in War 2 (also 2.377, 382;
a point developed at 2.376 below. here in the middle voice), to speak of the apportionment
2287
The reference is no doubt to the Greek contribu- of famously vast and impressive lands among peoples
tions to philosophy (including science and medicine), who nonetheless submit to Rome.
2295
art, architecture, historiography, and literature, which The verb ὑπείκω occurs in War (also Ant. 15.246)
still dominated the Roman world. Josephus’ Agrippa only here and at 2.369 below, driving home the themes
thus assembles a convenient triad of absolute necessities of Agrippa’s speech.
2296
for launching a war—resources, physical numbers and MSS PAML have simply “the” (ταῖς), but the
strength, and intelligence—and dismisses Judean claims others indicate a form of “6” (ἕξ) (followed by all mod-
to all of them by appealing to nations that famously ern editors). A number is almost required by the next
excelled in each, but now serve Rome. This triad will clause.
2297
be taken up in reverse order (see the two previous notes), Lit. “rods” (also in 2.366; cf. 5.435), but imme-
with the Greeks appearing again almost immediately diately understandable by a Roman audience (esp. with
(2.365): a periodic or concentric structure found often “consular” in the next sentence) as the Greek equivalent
in Josephus. of fasces (sing. fascis, originally a bundle of twigs or
2288
See the note to this word at 2.360. the like, but always plural in the technical sense here).
2289
Josephus’ authorial hand is evident. This neuter These were bundles of rods, about 1.5 m. (5 ft.) long,
substantive of the perfect participle, τὸ πεποιθός, is tied together in bundles along with an axe and symbol-
unattested before Josephus (though his contemporary izing the awesome power of senior Roman magistrates.
Plutarch has it: Marc. 23.4). Josephus has used it also at The fasces were carried on the left shoulder by the mag-
War 1.374, 567, showing unity of composition. istrates’ lictors, attendants or bodyguards who cleared
2290
See the note to “slaves” at 2.349, to “freedom” the path ahead in busy streets. Consuls were entitled to
at 2.346. 12 lictors bearing fasces, praetors to 6, imperial legates
2291
The only other occurrence in Josephus of this (as in Syria) to 5. Achaea and Macedonia were both
standard device from the philosophical diatribe (ἐρεῖ senatorial provinces at this point, without legions, gov-
τις) comes in a similar rhetorical situation. In his own erned by pronconsuls who, in spite of their title, were
character’s speech (at 3.367) he will demand to know ex-praetors; hence the number 6 here. As in Josephus’
what his audience fears in surrendering to the Romans. Greek, Latin fasces could indicate, metonymically, the
“‘Slavery!’ someone will say.” Josephus’ authorial hand high office rather than the objects themselves (e.g., Juve-
is again evident. nal 5.110).
2292
For the sufferings of Greece under generally Other Greek writers tended to describe the fasces
benevolent Roman rule, see (e.g., on free Athens) Mom- as bundles containing both rods (ῥάβδοι) and axes
msen 1887: 1.288-303. Lindner (1972: 22) reasonably (πελέκεις), rather than simply using the term “rods”
treats the following (to 2.387) as an illustrative elabora- for the whole as Josephus does (6 “rods” meaning
tion of the points just established in 2.361-64, compar- 6 lictors with fasces). Cf. Polybius 6.53.8; 11.29.6;
ing it to the brief elaboration at 2.358-61 (see note to 38.3.12; Diodorus 36.7.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.29.1;
“Athenians” at 2.358). 3.61.2, 62.1; 5.2.1, 19.3, 75.2; 8.53.3; 10.24.2; 10.59.5;
282 book two

to such a number the Macedonians also [give way], whose responsibility to contend for
freedom2298 has greater justice than yours.2299
366 And what about the 500 cities of Asia?2300 Do they not, without a garrison,2301 make
obeisance before2302 one governor and the consular fasces?2303
Why is it necessary to mention Heniochi as well as Colchi2304 and the people2305 of the
Tauri, Bosporani,2306 and the nations dwelling around the Pontus2307 and the Maeotis?2308

Strabo 5.2.2. The technical term for the whole package, ces to which the proconsuls (i.e., ex-praetors) governing
ῥαβδουχία (H. J. Mason 1974: 82), is hardly attested in Achaea and Macedonia were entitled and the consular
literature, though 3 of its 4 attestations are in Josephus’ fasces that marked the special dignity of the procon-
contemporary, Plutarch (Ant. 17.1; Cic. 16.6; Fab. 4.3). sul of Asia. Because of the province’s great wealth and
2298
On the face of it, the realist politician seems importance, this governor was an ex-consul, entitled to
to imply that Macedonia really ought to seek their 12 lictors with fasces.
2304
freedom (Μακεδόνες οἱ . . . ὀφείλοντες ἐλευθερίας Mentioned only here in Josephus, the Heniochi
ἀντιποιεῖσθαι). But in context the sense is ironic: one (their name means “[chariot] drivers, rein-holders,
cannot imagine even the Macedonians’ doing this, though guides”) occupied the E shores of the Black Sea in the
they are in a far better position than the Judeans, because foothills of the Caucasus (near the Achaei and Zygi),
of their historic domination of the world (by Alexander where they had reportedly lived by piracy and ransom
and his successors) and fierce initial resistance to Rome. money (Strabo 11.2.12). They bordered the large delta
At least, the construction seems to drive home the speak- of the Phasis River (mod. Rioni in W Georgia), a region
er’s lack of ideological commitment to Rome. known as Colchis, where tradition located the fleece that
2299
See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the was sought by Jason and the Argonauts. The territory
War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. of the Colchi apparently extended to Trapezus on the S
2300
Although Mommsen (1887: 2.355) accepted this shore of the Black Sea (Strabo 11.2.18). About a decade
number without cavil, it seems a substantial inflation. As before Josephus’ time of writing (i.e., 63/64 CE), Nero
Paul (1990: 80-81) points out, Josephus must be speak- had removed this region from the Bosporan dynasty (see
ing of the province of Asia because he mentions other note to “Bosporani” in this section), out of concern over
Anatolian provinces below (2.368). But Pliny’s contem- its role in endemic piracy, and annexed it to the province
porary figure for population centers in Asia is 282 (Nat. of Cappadocia.
5.150), and only 73 cities in Asia seem to have minted Why does Josephus’ Agrippa mention these two peo-
coins under Augustus and Tiberius (Magie 1950: 1.472; ples and not the dozens of other tribes around the SE
2.135 n. 16). Mitchell (1993: 1.80 n. 3) considers Jose- shore of the Black Sea? They were typically singled out
phus’ figure exaggerated even for Asia Minor as a whole as the main groups (cf. Strabo 11.5.6). They represent
under Roman rule, though the area was marked by rapid the furthest extremity of Roman rule in the area, among
urbanization. recently conquered peoples of a famously ferocious tem-
2301
Though he is willing to trust Josephus as to both per. And they provide a symmetrical counterpart to the
the number of cities and the absence of a garrison at Tauri and Bosporans, next to be mentioned, across the
the time of Agrippa’s speech in 66 CE, Sherk (1955: sea on the N.
2305
404-7) adduces compelling epigraphical evidence for Josephus uses τὸ φῦλον 12 times, but 5 of these
the presence of two auxiliary cohorts (I Bosporana and —the only occurrences in War 2—are concentrated in
I Hispana) at the beginning of the Flavian period, 69-71 Agrippa’s speech, with its ethnographic survey. Although
CE: Josephus might intend by δίχα φρουρᾶς the equiva- the noun can refer to a swarm or gender (Ant. 2.306;
lent of Latin inermus (Tacitus, Hist. 2.81), meaning not 13.430), Josephus most often uses it (3.354; 7.327; Apion
“without soldiers,” but “without an army”—a minimum 2.127) interchangeably with ἔθνος, itself a famously flex-
number of soldiers being always needed for protection of ible term (“tribe, people, nation, race”). In this passage
the governor and of such crucial sites as mines and mints. it could mean “tribe,” but since elsewhere in the speech
Cf. Le Bohec (1994: 163-64) and Ritterling (1927), the it more likely indicates a “people” or “nation” (free of
latter on the presence of permanent military garrisons in modern political connotations), I render it this way for
pronconsular provinces—with relatively small auxiliary consistency.
2306
forces. See also “without weapons” at 2.368. On the N side of the eastern half of the Black
2302
See the note at 2.360. Sea, and marking the transition to the Maeotis (Sea of
2303
Josephus makes a subtle distinction, which he Azov) about to be mentioned, these peoples provide
expects his audience to understand, between the 6 fas- a symmetrical counterpart to the Henochi and Colchi
book two 283

367 Whereas in the past no master of their own was recognized among them, now they
are subject to 3,000 armed troops,2309 and forty long ships2310 pacify the formerly unnavi-
gable and wild sea.2311

just mentioned. They belong together because the Tauri, himself rule from about 10 to 37/8 CE)—is depicted
occupying the mountains across the S of the Crimean along with her child on the Ara Pacis. D. Roller (1998:
peninsula (Chersonesus Taurica, in the S extremity of 276-77) suggests that Herod’s son Antipater might be in
mod. Ukraine), W of the Cimmerian Bosporus, were the background, between Dynamis and Agrippa.
2307
subjects of the Bosporan dynasty. Note Strabo 11.2.10: The Pontus (lit. “the deep, the sea-wave”) was
“All those who are subject to the potentates of Bosporus common short-hand for Pontus Euxinus: the “hospitable-
are called Bosporani.” This monarchy was based in the to-foreigners deep,” ancient name for the Black Sea. The
eastern-most of the two principal cities on the peninsula, Pontus gave its name also to the surrounding land, espe-
Panticapaeum (also called Bosporus), which had been cially along the S/SE shore. The kingdom of Pontus was
part of the kingdom of Mithradates VI Eupator and was famous to Greeks and Romans because of the exploits of
his final place of refuge from the Romans under Pompey its long-lived king Mithradates VI Eupator (ruled 120-63
(65-63 BCE). BCE), who had dominated the Sea and faced Rome in
Although the Bosporan dynasty, comprising real and a series of (“Mithradatic”) wars: 88-82 BCE (in which
alleged descendants of Mithradates VI (cf. Tacitus, Ann. he was successful) and 75-65 BCE (which he finally
12.15-31), would retain local rule until the 3rd or 4th cen- lost to Pompey, fleeing then to Bosporus; see the pre-
tury CE, the dynasts had come under Roman protection vious note). Although Pompey detached Pontus from
after Pompey, who allowed Mithradates’ son Pharnaces Mithradates’ descendants, giving it to King Deiotarus,
II to rule there (63-47 BCE), though removing Pontus Pharnaces II, who had been permitted to keep Bosporus
from him. Bosporus’ protection was at first the respon- (63-47), later overran Pontus and Colchis. Descendants
sibility of the governors of Macedonia and Bithynia, of the great king would rule again: Darius (39-37 BCE),
then of Moesia and Thracia after these provinces were Polemon I (37-8 BCE: a contemporary of Herod the
established in the mid-1st century CE. Great), Polemon’s widow Pythodoris (8 BCE-23 CE),
Descendants of Mithradates often ruled both Bospo- and Polemon II (38-64 CE). In 64 CE Nero annexed
rus and Pontus, beginning with Pharnaces II’s seizure what remained of Pontus to Cappadocia. See Mitchell
of Pontus, though he was defeated and killed by Julius 1993: 1.93.
2308
Caesar in 47 BCE. Sometimes the same ruler would con- The modern Sea of Azov.
2309
trol both. Josephus elsewhere mentions an important trip This army has the same size as the combined
made by Marcus Agrippa in 14 BCE to the Bosporus, auxiliary force that controlled Judea (see the note to
in which Herod ably assisted (Ant. 16.16-24)—though “Sebastenes” at 2.52). We do not know much about
curiously he does not indicate its purpose, which was to the forces in the Pontus region, however. Were they a
establish the Pontic king Polemon I on the throne in place permanent auxiliary? Vexillations from the Cappado-
of the usurper Scribonius, who had killed the previous cian legions were only possible after 72 CE (see note to
king, Asander (cf. Barrett 1977: 2-3). After 8 BCE, when “Cappadocia” at 2.368). It seems unlikely, in a survey
Polemon died, his former wife Dynamis ruled Bospo- of Roman forces (in spite of his inclusion of Bosporus
rus (to 8 CE; cf. Rostovtzeff 1919), whereas his widow and the Taurians) that Josephus includes troops under
Pythodoris held power in Pontus (to 23 CE). the control of the king of Bosporus (Mommsen 1887:
In Josephus’ time, Bosporan princes served at the 1.344).
2310
pleasure of the emperors and enthusiastically displayed The MSS reflect a telling confusion, with the
their friendship with Rome, through service as priests Attic nominative plural νῆες µακραί appearing in MSS
of the imperial cult and in their coinage and inscriptions ML2V2RC (and printed by Thackeray and Pelletier; cf.
honoring the reigning emperor and declaring themselves Ant. 14.375), but the (apparent) singular ναῦς in MSS
“friend of Rome.” Throughout most of Josephus’ time PA (as Niese and M-B)—a puzzle because adjective and
in Rome (68/9 to 90 CE) the king was Rhescuporis, son verb are plural. LSJ (s.v.) notes, however, that Hellenistic
of Cotys (cf. Mommsen 1887: 1.300, 338-346; Braund authors often use the singular also for the nominative
1994). The main city on the SW of the peninsula, Cher- plural (cf. Ant. 8.181: πολλαὶ γὰρ ἦσαν ναῦς). This
sonesus, was free and minted its own coinage. would explain the “more difficult reading” of MSS PA,
Rose (1990) argues that Queen Dynamis of Bosporus though elsewhere Josephus uses the plural νῆες (7.148;
(d. 8 CE)—widow of Asander (d. 17 BCE), divorcee of Ant. 14.375) and favors the Attic—i.e., not Hellenistic—
Polemon I (d. 8 BCE), and wife of Aspurgus (who would use of the nominative singular for the accusative plural
284 book two

368 How much do Bithynia2312 and Cappadocia2313 and the Pamphylian nation,2314
Lycii2315 and also Cilices,2316 have to say in behalf of “freedom”2317 as they are subject to
tribute2318—without weapons?2319

(τὰς ναῦς, 3.418, 469; Ant. 8.163; 10.279), as do Poly- Vespasian had recently (72 CE) combined Cappadocia
bius and Diodorus (passages following). with Armenia Minor and Galatia to create a massive
The “long ships” in question are warships, tapered province governed by a consular legate with two legions
for battle, in contrast to the more rounded shapes of (XII Fulminata, taken from Syria, and possibly XVI Fla-
merchant vessels and transport ships (cf. 4.499; Thucy- via felix; cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 8; Tacitus, Ann. 2.42.6;
dides 8.34.1; Aristophanes, Eq. 1351; Av. 379; Polybius Parker 1992: 148; Mitchell 1993: 1.63; 2. Appendix 1).
1.20.13, 25.7; 3.23.2; 21.43.13; Diodorus 1.55.2; 2.5.6; Josephus reflects no awareness of this latest develop-
4.32.2; 5.12.4; 11.2.1; 11.3.7, 12.3, 20.2-3, 24.2, 68.2; ment, however.
2314
12.4.5; 13.54.1, 62.6, 107.3-4; 14.47.7, et passim). There In Josephus’ time (since 43 CE) they were part of
was an established equivalent in Latin: Caesar routinely the Roman province of Lycia and Pamphylia (see next
distinguishes between the navis longa and the navis note). Pamphylia proper was the coastal plain along the
oneraria (Bell. gall. 4.21-22, 25). central bight on the S coast of Anatolia, bounded by
This is the only reference in Agrippa’s speech to a the mountains of Lycia to the W and those of Cilicia to
Roman naval force. After Nero’s annexation of Colchis the E. This prosperous home to several cities (including
in 63/64 CE (see note to “Colchi” in this section), out Attaleia, Perge, Sillyum, Aspendus, and Side), fell under
of a concern to halt piracy on the Black Sea, a new Persian and then Athenian domination, then was con-
fleet was created there (classis pontica), supplementing tested by the Ptolemies and Seleucids, the Pergamenes
fleets already established to protect the Italian coasts, N and Pisidians. When the province of Asia was created by
Africa, and Alexandria (the major grain centers). Arrian the Romans in 133 BCE, Pamphylia was part of it, but
of Nicomedia mentions this fleet in his Periplus ponti it was then joined to Cilicia (ca. 80 BCE), Asia again
euxini (9.3), in connection with his tour of the region (40s BCE), and Galatia (25 BCE), before joining Lycia
as governor of Cappadocia (132 CE). See Starr 1989: in 43 CE.
2315
67-82, esp. 74. Lycia and Pamphylia, in mod. south-central Tur-
2311
As the verb “pacify” makes clear, the rough and key, was constituted an imperial province by Claudius in
unsailable nature of the sea had been caused by piracy, 43 CE; in Josephus’ time it was governed by an imperial
not by nature. For piracy making seas “unnavigable,” legate but had no significant Roman military presence;
see further 3.416: rebel Judean raiders temporarily set see Sherk 1955: 401-403. The Lycians, a hardy people
up a base at Joppa to harass shipping in the Egypt-Syria who occupied a rugged land, appear already in Homer on
corridor. the Trojan side of the war (Il. 2.876-77). After living for
2312
The Bithynians (occupying the western part of the centuries under Persian, Athenian, Ptolemaic, and Seleu-
N coast of mod. Turkey), of Thracian stock, preserved cid domination, their territory was given by the Romans
considerable autonomy under native kings, by means to Rhodes, following the defeat of Antiochus III in 189
of shrewd alliances, through the Persian and Seleucid BCE. Twenty years later, however, they received their
periods. When Nicomedes IV died in 75/4 BCE, he freedom, which they preserved for nearly a quarter of a
bequeathed his territory to Rome. From Pompey’s orga- millennium, developing an efficient and durable political
nization of Pontus-Bithynia in 63 BCE, it remained a confederation. In mentioning their direct subjection to
public or “senatorial” province, under a proconsul, until Rome, Josephus’ Agrippa is therefore describing recent
in 110 CE Trajan sent Pliny as his imperial legate to deal events. He does not mention the province of Lycia and
with its financial and other problems (cf. Sherk 1955: Pamphylia, however, preferring to describe the peoples
403-4). It had a military presence of at least two cohorts (of famously rugged character) who now obey Rome.
from the early 2nd cent. CE (Pliny, Ep. 10.21, 106), and 2316
Cilicia comprised the E half of the coastal region
these may have arrived already under the Flavians, of S Anatolia: the western, mountainous part (Tracheia;
though Josephus does not indicate such a garrison. under Assyria called Hilakku—the source of “Cilicia”)
2313
In mountainous E Anatolia (mod. Turkey), away and the plain from Tarsus to the E (Pedias). Like other
from the S coast. The area was annexed by Tiberius after parts of Asia Minor, it was conquered by the Persians
the death of its client-king Archelaus (17 CE; see the and, after Alexander, contested by Ptolemies and Seleu-
note to “Cappadocia” at 2.114), as a province under an cids (completely under Seleucid rule from about 195
equestrian prefect with only local auxiliary forces (cf. BCE). Towards the end of the 2nd century BCE, the
Mitchell 1993: 1.63). At Josephus’ time of writing War , mountain dwellers began to engage in serious piracy in
book two 285

So, what?2320 The Thracians,2321 who have seized a region five days in breadth and
seven in length,2322 more rugged than yours—and more secure by a long way,2323 driving
back attacking armies with its deep frost: do they not submit to 2,000 Roman guards?2324
369 And after these the Illyrii,2325 inhabiting the [region] all the way to Dalmatia,2326 cut

the vital shipping lanes of the NE Mediterranean. This place. Thrace (mod. S Bulgaria with part of NE Greece
led the Romans, through the mid-70s BCE, to subdue and Turkey W of Istanbul, bounded on the E by the
that region and annex it as a province (though the moun- Black Sea, Sea of Marmara, and Hellespont) had only
tain-dwellers would remain a problem for Rome through been made a province (Thracia)—imperial, subject to an
the 1st century CE; Mitchell 1993: 1.73 n. 35), leaving equestrian procurator—by Claudius in 46 CE. Until then
the eastern plains to nearby Armenia. Ongoing piracy it had remained a client kingdom, sometimes divided
led to Pompey’s campaign against the scourge in 67 CE, in two parts (cf. the division of Judea after Herod) and
which in turn led to the incorporation of the Pedias plain beset by dynastic rivalries. Under Augustus in 13 BCE,
into the Roman province (63 BCE). Cicero famously a serious Thracian uprising (until 10 BCE) had required
served as governor of Cilicia in 51/50 BCE. the intervention of the celebrated Roman ex-consul
The Roman civil wars of the 40s and 30s BCE left the (cos. 15 BCE), Lucius Calpurnius Piso. In describ-
region in disarray, and once Octavian had consolidated ing his exploits, Velleius Paterculus (2.98) portrays the
power (30 BCE) he dissolved Cilicia, attaching the E Thracians in stereotypical language: “by a succession
part to the province of Syria and giving other pieces of battles and sieges, he brought these fiercest of races
to client kings. This arrangement continued for about a (gentesque ferocissimas) to their former state of peace-
century, through the story time of Agrippa’s speech in 66 ful subjection.”
2322
CE, until in 72 Vespasian reunited the province. (This is Since Thrace was about 350 miles “long” (E-W)
the still general view, though Bickerman [1947] argued and 175 miles in breadth, these times must be for rapid
that E Cilicia was joined to Syria only under Tiberius communications by horse-drawn carriage. Couriers in
[between 18 and 35 CE] and detached in 54 to serve as the cursus publicus established by Augustus could cover
Corbulo’s base.) Since Josephus mentions the people, about 50 miles per day on average, at 5 miles per hour,
rather than the province, and they were subject to direct tripling that distance in emergencies by not stopping
or indirect Roman rule in any case, it is unclear whether (cf. Casson 1994: 198). Although modern translators
the speech reflects post-72 conditions. normally render “five days’ march” (Thackeray in LCL),
2317
See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the infantry soldiers could manage only about 15-20 miles
War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. per day in favorable circumstances. Strabo (17.3.20) is
2318
Mitchell (1993: 1.68) observes the meager evi- amazed that an army could maintain even that pace over
dence for the various forms of provincial taxation in difficult terrain for a month.
2323
Asia Minor and the hazard in applying norms from else- Western Thrace is extremely mountainous, with
where. There were presumably census-based personal elevations abruptly varying between 3,000 and 6,000 ft
and land taxes, along with a variety of indirect taxes, (900 to 1800 m). The highest ridge of the Judean hills,
but the mechanisms remain unclear. He also notes the by contrast, is in the 2,000-2,500 ft (600 to 750 m) range,
peculiarity that the equestrian procurators in charge of and is much more limited in scope, with broad, acces-
revenue, at least until Hadrian, had fields of authority sible plains along the W and N (S of Galilee).
2324
that ran across the boundaries of the provinces. Parker (1992: 132 n. 1) cites CIL 2.3272, showing
2319
This could mean either “without resorting to one Valerianus commanding detachments from 3 Moe-
weapons,” as Agrippa claims the Judeans wish to do (so sian legions (V Macedonica, VIII Augusta, and perhaps
Thackeray in LCL), or that they accept tribute without IV Scythica) in Thrace, newly formed as a province in
being compelled to do so by by the presence of Roman 46 CE.
2325
weapons—i.e., armies (as Whiston, M-B, Vitucci, Pel- The Illyrians were well known for their tough-
letier). The latter is rather more likely, as a variation on ness: it was their state-sponsored piracy under Queen
“without a garrison” in 2.366. See the note there. Teuta, according to Polybius, that first prompted Rome
2320
See the note to “What, then?” at 2.364 above. to cross the Adriatic and involve itself in Greek affairs,
This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the expres- from 219 BCE (see Polybius 2.4-12). They fought Rome
sion τί δαί, or even of δαί: a colloquial-Attic touch in repeatedly, and also allied with them at times, until their
Agrippa’s speech. submission (as an ally of the Macedonian king Perseus)
2321
Or Thraces, in keeping with the other name forms in 168 BCE. Whereas in Greek usage “the Illyrians”
used here, but “Thracians” to avoid confusion with the means those living on the western edge of Macedonia,
286 book two

off by the Ister:2327 do they not give way to only two legions,2328 alongside which they

N of Epirus, the Romans understood “Illyricum” to Moesian legions in mind—though his translation seems
extend all the way N to the Danube (cf. Suetonius, to favor Pannonia (“who inhabit the region extending
Tib. 16; OCD s.v. “Illyricum, Illyrii”). The territory of from Dalmatia to the frontier of the Ister”). Moesia
Illyricum allotted to Julius Caesar in 59 BCE covered emerges as a defined province at about the same time
this entire region (mod. Bosnia-Hersegovina, Croatia, as the creation of Thracia (46 CE), though there had been
Slovenia, NE Italy, and E Austria), though he did not legates and legions in the lower Danube region since the
subdue it. It was made an imperial province, subject to turn of the era, under Augustus. Domitian would divide
a legate, by 11 BCE (Dio 54.34.4; Augustus, RG 30) Moesia into Upper and Lower provinces.
2328
and, after the suppression of the Pannonian Revolt (6-9 The legions along the Danube that were available
CE), divided into two provinces (later, at least, called to deal with the serious Dacian threat were, at Josephus’
Dalmatia and Pannonia). On Josephus’ meaning, see the time of writing in the mid-70s, those based in Moesia
following notes. (4), Pannonia (2), and Dalmatia (1) (Parker 1992: 147).
2326
The Balkan region covered today by the west- Josephus does not name Pannonia or Moesia in Agrip-
ern part of former Yugoslavia, roughly as far E from pa’s survey (see 4.619; 7.117), but he appears to have the
the Adriatic as the Danube, and as far N from Mace- latter in mind here (previous note). Because of its impor-
donia as Belgrade, with the northern border rising N as tant strategic position, Parker (1992: 138) observes, even
it moves W, to just N of Rijeka on the Croatian coast. in the Armenian crisis of the early 60s, which required
Formerly the southern part of Illyricum, Dalmatia was Corbulo to gather legions from many places, “Moesia
constituted as an imperial province, with its capital at was never left without at least two legions.” But which
coastal Salonae (near Split), early in the 1st century CE. ones?
See the following notes. From Filow (1906: 21-23) and Parker (1992: 132,
2327
Josephus’ ambiguous syntax appears to mean that 140, 142, 144) we gather that V Macedonica and IV
this place of the Illyrii (and not Dalmatia) was bounded Scythica were in the region from about the conclusion
by the Ister/Danube, which would be true of both Moesia of the Pannonian revolt in 9 CE. VIII Augusta was trans-
and Pannonia. Since the Roman territory of Illyricum had ferred there in 46 CE, possibly to support the creation
been split into Dalmatia and Pannonia, and Suetonius of neighboring Thrace that year (Tacitus, Ann. 12.15).
calls the Pannonian revolt the War of Illyricum (Tib. 16), IV Scythica was sent from Moesia to Syria in 56 or 57
and Josephus will discuss the other part of Illyricum— and not replaced. In 62 CE, V Macedonica also went to
Dalmatia—next (2.370), one might conclude that he Syria, but it was replaced with VII Claudia from Dalma-
locates these Illyrians in Pannonia, between Dalmatia to tia (to maintain two legions in Moesia); V Macedonica
the S and the Danube to the N. Although he knows about would remain in the E, proceeding to Alexandria, from
the province of Pannonia (War 4.619; 7.117), he does where it would march to Judea under Titus. III Gallica,
not mention it in Agrippa’s survey, possibly because the which had also been attached to Corbulo in Syria, was
revolt there was so long, difficult, and famous (“the most sent to Moesia by Nero in about 66. At Nero’s death in
serious of all foreign wars since those with Carthage” 68 CE, therefore, the Moesian legions were III Gallica,
[Suetonius, Tib. 16]; Velleius Paterculus, a staff officer VII Claudia, and VIII Augusta; at least the latter two
in the conflict, gives a vivid account: 2.110-17), that it were there at the time of Agrippa’s speech, and all 3
might have been counterproductive to mention Pannonia may have been. But VIII Augusta and III Gallica would
by name, in a speech on the alleged submission of the leave in 69 CE with Antonius Primus to handle Ves-
inhabited earth to Rome. pasian’s campaigns in Italy. At about the same time, I
On balance, however, it seems more likely that Jose- Italica was moved into Moesia, as part of Vespasian’s
phus here intends Moesia (E coast of Romania, N Bul- plan to strengthen the region; VII Claudia was returned
garia, E Serbia), which sat between just-described Thrace from Italy; and on completion of the main Judean war, V
and Dalmatia, even though the (Thracian) Moesi do not Macedonica returned from its long absence (War 7.117).
seem to have been Illyrii (Domaszewski 1892: 213). But At Josephus’ time of writing, therefore, the legions in
in that case his description would move in a more intel- Moesia were I Italica, VII Claudia, V Macedonica, and
ligible westerly direction (Thrace, Moesia, Dalmatia), apparently the former Rhine legion, V Alaudae (Parker
making better sense of “after these”; and the Moesian 1992: 148; Ritterling 1925: 1569).
legions were the ones most readily available to fight the If Josephus were referring to Pannonia (overlapping
Dacians across the Danube to the N (Filow 1906: 21-23). with mod. Slovenia, E. Austria, based at Carnuntum),
Thackeray (LCL ad loc.) assumes that Josephus has the the reckoning would be simpler. At the time of Agrippa’s
book two 287

themselves drive back the assaults of the Dacians?2329 370 And the Dalmatae,2330 who so
often bucked the yoke2331 for freedom—and for this [purpose]2332 alone always marshaled
their strength to rebel again, whenever they had been subdued in those days:2333 do they
not now keep quiet2334 under one legion2335 of Romans?
371 But in truth, if indeed great stimuli2336 might understandably provoke2337 some people Gauls

2332
speech, the two legions would have been X Gemina and Instead of using a feminine pronoun to refer to
XIII Gemina, with XV Apollinaris having earlier departed antecedent ἐλευθερία (thus “for this freedom”), Jose-
from its established base in Carnuntum for Corbulo’s phus opts for the neuter article, apparently understanding
campaign (ca. 63 CE). Both of these would soon also a missing noun such as τὸ τέλος.
2333
be transferred, but early in Vespasian’s reign Legio XIII Josephus’ Agrippa singles out the Dalmatians for
returned to its base at Poetovio; it was soon joined by impressive resistance to foreign domination, perhaps in
XV Apollinaris, returning after a long absence in the part because, having abandoned their alliance with the
E—most recently for the Judean war—to its base at Car- Illyrian kingdom to the S, they did not share its defeat
nuntum (Parker 1992: 148; War 7.117). and submission to Rome in 168 BCE. Rather, they con-
2329
This gives a vivid impression of the ongoing tinued to attack Roman allies and interests for more than
threat from the Dacians (in mod. Romania, N of the a century and a half. Although their territory was given
Danube)—and Sarmatians—felt by those living S of the to Julius Caesar, he was not able to pacify the region,
river. Roman leaders had planned invasions or diplomatic though Octavian occupied most of it in 34/33 BCE. Still
measures from the time of Julius Caesar onward (Sueto- the conflicts continued: Tiberius led a campaign against
nius, Jul. 44.3; Aug. 63). In Josephus’ time, under their them in 11-9 BCE, and they were only finally subdued
king Decebalus the Dacians were making the threat clear (by Tiberius) with the end of the Pannonian Revolt (9
again: a few years after he wrote this passage, in battles CE). Indeed, the Dalmatians were the only holdouts after
of 85 and 86 CE, they would kill the governor of Moesia the other rebels had surrendered (Velleius 2.94.4), and
as well as Domitian’s praetorian prefect. After his victory their persistence required a purely “Dalmatian” phase
against them in 88, Domitian would impose a peace that of the conflict (2.95). Velleius observes (2.95.4), albeit
recognized Decebalus as a friend (client) of Rome. But in the course of aggrandizing Tiberius’ victory, that the
in the early 2nd century Trajan, after yet further confron- Dalmatians were, “because of the siting of their emplace-
tations, would reduce Dacia to a province (106 CE). ments in the mountains, their fierce temper, their amaz-
2330
The Illyrians (partly Celtic) who gave their name ing knowledge of fighting, and especially the narrow
to the province: see note to “Dalmatia” at 2.369. passes in which they lived, very nearly unbeatable.”
2331 2334
This is a colorful verb (ἀναχαιτίζω), with two Although ἡσυχίαν ἄγω is a common expression,
meanings: of a horse, “throwing back the mane” in rear- used also by Josephus in other works (Ant. 1.274; 3.76;
ing or bucking; of a rider, keeping control of the horse by 5.330; 7.127; 9.156, 195, 224; 11.261; 14.46; 15.116;
seizing the mane. Josephus’ only other use of the verb is Apion 2.114), this is the only occurrence in War .
2335
strikingly similar, in his own character’s speech at 5.389. Following the unsuccessful revolt of L. Arruntius
Whereas here his Agrippa speaks admiringly of a people Camillus Scribonianus in 42 CE, Dalmatia became home
who have thrown off the yoke of foreign rule in the past, to the loyalist legions, VII Claudia pia fi delis (Mace-
Josephus there observes that the Judeans did not “rear donica) and XI Claudia pia fidelis (Actiaca). VII Claudia
their manes for freedom” while in Babylonian captivity; was called to Syria in 58 CE, after which it went to Moe-
God has always directed their course. The parallel thus sia (Parker 1992: 119, 135, 142, 144, 148). After 72-73,
confirms both Josephus’ authorial control over Agrippa’s XI Claudia was shifted to Germania Superior, following
speech and his rhetorical flexibility. service in 69-70 CE with Cerialis, and replaced with the
Before Josephus’ time the verb was used little, mainly newly formed IV Flavia felix (Parker 1992: 144, 148,
by playwrights (Euripides, Hipp. 1232; Bacch. 1072; and Dio 55.24.3). So Josephus may have in mind either
Rhes. 786; Sophocles, Frag. 179 [Radt]; Demosthenes, legio XI Cl. (at Agrippa’s time) or IV Fl. f. (in his own
Olynth. 9; Menander, Sam. 209; Dionysius, Ant. rom. time)—or he may be citing the general situation that
5.15.3; 12.5.2). It was, however, something of a favorite Dalmatia hosts one legion.
2336
term for Philo, who also used it chiefly in a metaphorical Or simply “circumstances” (ἀφορµαί); see the
(though not political) sense: Opif. 1.79, 88; Leg. 1.73; notes at 2.41, 324. Here the sense is suggested by
Sacr. 1.49; Agric. 1.70; Somn. 2.83; Mos. 1.25, 177, 270; the parallel line of argument in 2.385, where “spur”
Spec. 2.18, 147, 163; 4.99; Virt. 1.41. Here again we see (κέντρον) is used.
2337
Josephus’ “Philonic” language. See the note at 2.8.
288 book two

towards rebellion,2338 it should obviously have been the Galatai,2339 who have been walled
off2340 by nature thus:2341 from the east by the Alps, to the north by the Rhenus River,2342
in the south by the Pyrenean Mountains, and by Oceanus2343 to the west. 372 But even
still, having been enclosed by such great defenses, and abounding with 305 nations,2344 and
having the springs of prosperity,2345 as one might say,2346 in the country itself,2347 and with

2338
For the word, see note at 2.39. This must be an (2.378), and the Egyptians or Alexandrians (2.386),
ironic statement, for Josephus’ Roman audience could which the Romans have nevertheless overcome. Of what
not help but know about the serious and recent unrest in use, then, are mere city walls such as Jerusalem’s, no
Gaul, led first by the governor of Lugdunensis, C. Iulius matter how strong?
2341
Vindex (spring, 68 CE) with the support of local nobility, Cf. Strabo 2.5.28; 4.1.1, with much more detail.
and then with the support of Iulius Classicus and other This portrait is much simplified. If we envision Gaul as
prominent Gauls for the enormous Batavian revolt, led a rough pentagon with a “roof ”, the NW and W sides
by Iulius Civilis in 69/70 and finally suppressed by 9 face Oceanus, the NE the Rhine, the lower E the Alps,
legions under Cerialis. See the note to “restive” at 1.5, and the S is defined by the Pyrenees to the W and the
where Josephus has emphasizes the turmoil of the time Mediterranean to the E.
2342
in a different rhetorical context. This notice confirms Josephus’ ethnographical
2339
I.e., Gauls: see the note at 2.364. The space that interest (cf. Strabo 2.5.28; 4.1.1), for Augustus had
Agrippa gives the Gauls is justified by their importance removed large tracts W of the Rhine to create the prov-
to Rome. Although this speech focuses on the Roman ince of Germania Inferior and Superior. For the Gallic
conquest, the Gauls themselves had invaded Italy in 391 provinces the Rhine was no longer a meaningful border
BCE and sacked Rome in 390 (Livy 5.34-37), follow- (Belgica coming closest to it near Koblenz), but it was
ing up with further invasions into the 3rd century BCE. still reasonable to speak of the Gallic peoples extending
These created a deep insecurity among the Romans, to the Rhine. See the note to “Gauls” in this section.
2343
which affected also their internal governance (in rela- See the notes at 2.155: this is the body of water
tions among the “orders”), for many decades afterwards. commonly thought to encircle the inhabited earth. It is
A final concerted attack by the Gauls in 225 BCE, after most accessible at the Mediterranean, where its boundary
a half-century of quiet, was disastrous for the attackers, is marked by the Pillars of Hercules (at Gibraltar).
2344
however, and led the Romans to embark on a program Plutarch (Caes. 15) gives 300; Appian (Celt. 1.2)
of subduing Cisalpine Gaul (by 190 BCE, delayed by gives 400.
2345
Hannibal’s invasion in 218 BCE). Next came the sub- Gaul produced abundant wine, oil, and wool; it
jugation of Transalpine Gaul in the Rhone valley and was rich in iron; and it yielded plenty of grain—though it
foothills of the Alps and Massif Central (120s BCE): does not seem to have sent much to Rome. Cf. Frank 1927:
Narbonese Gaul, after the foundation of coastal Narbo 367-72; Rostovtzeff 1957: 1.165-67, 215-21 (with reliefs
(mod. Narbonne), as a veterans’ colony in about 118 showing business activities in Gaul, from a slightly later
BCE. The conquest of the remainder, N and W of the period than Josephus’ War ). The wealth of Gaul, already
Massif Central, was the work of Julius Caesar (in 59-51 mentioned by Agrippa at 2.364, was famous. Cicero had
BCE). long before observed (late 70s BCE): “All Gaul is filled
Augustus would create 3 large provinces (Aquitania, with traders, is full of Roman citizens” (Font. 5). Gallic
Lugdunensis, and Belgica) from the new region and, wealth had come to Rome most obviously in the form
after the collapse of his German province E of the Rhine of Julius Caesar’s unstoppable resources, his exaction
(9 CE), remove large tracts W of the Rhine from Belgica of tribute from the new subjects (40 million HS annu-
to redefine them as Germania Inferior (N) and Supe- ally, according to Suetonius, Jul. 25), and his expensive
rior (S). Josephus’ description here, giving the Rhenus projects in Rome and other cities financed by the Gallic
(Rhine) as Gaul’s boundary, characteristically ignores war: the Basilica Iulia (the area of a football field, 3
political borders. See Rankin 1996: 103-37; Cunliffe stories high), a large extension to the forum romanum,
1997: 235-57. lavish public spectacles, the doubling of legionary base
2340
Ancient cities typically had built walls (classi- pay along with increased food allotments for soldiers
cal Sparta being a notable exception) and those with and the assignment of slaves (Suetonius, Jul. 26; cf. 28),
the most advantageous natural situations were obviously and the beginnings of a massive marble and colonnaded
better suited to defense. Josephus’ Agrippa extends the structure for popular meetings—all this supplementing
principle to entire peoples, describing the seemingly earlier enhancements of the forum while he was aedile
impregnable natural “walls” of the Gauls, the Britons (Cicero, Att. 4.17; Suetonius, Jul. 10).
book two 289

their goods flooding nearly the whole world,2348 they tolerate being Romans’ revenue2349
and serving as paymaster for their very own, domestic prosperity.2350 373 And they put up
with this not because of any softness in aspirations or lack of nobility2351—they who for
eighty years persevered2352 with a war in behalf of freedom2353—but in connection with the
Romans’ power, and after being astonished at their fortune,2354 which brings them success

2346
Before Josephus, who uses the phrase ἄν τις εἴποι Central. Caesar himself refers to the precedent of Q.
9 times (5 in War 1-4), Philo has it 10 times; Josephus’ Fabius Maximus’ defeat of the Arverni and Ruteni in 125
contemporary Plutarch has 24 occurrences. In earlier BCE, in his confrontation of the German Ariovistus over
authors, however, it is rare (5 occurrences in Aristotle’s claims to Gaul (Bell. gall. 1.45). Cicero’s defense of the
corpus, mostly in the Magna moralia, 3 each in Plato, governor of Gallia Narbonensis, M. Fonteius, refers to
Xenophon, and Demosthenes, 1 in Polybius). The phrase the ongoing conflicts with local tribes even there in the
provides another example of Josephus’ control of Agrip- late 70s BCE (Font. 5-6).
2353
pa’s speech, also of his tendency toward “Philonic” and See the note to “freedom,” a basic theme of the
Second-Sophistic diction. War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. Agrippa’s impli-
2347
That is, they do not rely on imports, as many cation that the Gauls fought for 8 decades to preserve
regions (including Rome) must, but actually export their their freedom against Rome is a simplification to the
abundant natural resources and manufactured goods. point of serious distortion. The Romans had entered the
2348
See the note to this word at 2.360. Rostovtzeff region at the urgent request of one group in Gaul (the
(1957: 1.165) points out that the combination of excel- Massilians, of mod. Marseilles), for aid against another
lent rivers and sea ports throughout Gaul made it easier (the Ligurians). Caesar justified his own campaigns in
for Gallic merchants than for most to collect goods from the 50s on the basis of prior German encroachment: the
throughout the country and get them to markets along Aedui sought his help against the Sequani (backed by
both the Rhine and the Danube. Ariovistus of the German Suebi, who had crossed the
2349
MSS PA have a more convenient “giving revenue” Rhine to stake his claim), and he checked the attempt
(πρόσοδον διδόντες), but ὄντες is the more difficult and of the Helvetii to migrate to lowland Gaul. Caesar’s con-
preferable reading. It is a more humiliating verb for the flicts in Gaul were not simply, therefore, battles against
Gauls—they are mere revenue—, in keeping with realist those defending their freedom against Rome.
posture of the speaker. At any rate, Agrippa implies a stark contrast with
2350
That is, the Gauls are not only required to pay the the Judeans, who barely put up any resistance when
Romans tribute; they themselves must see to the collec- they had the chance, and the Romans were still outside
tion and handing over of their own bounty. (63 BCE); their passion for freedom now is too late
2351
Josephus’ negative phrasing is noteworthy: he (2.355-57), especially given that even those who have
infers the Gauls’ toughness from military conflicts more mightily resisted the Romans over several decades have
than a century earlier, featuring not their warlike nature long since made their accommodation.
2354
but their natural defenses and resources. Contrast his See also the notes to “fortune” at 2.184, 373, 390.
presentation of the Germani at 2.376-77, which is all The theme of Rome’s fortune (τύχη) connects Josephus
about their bellicosity. This difference accords with Taci- (2.360, 387; 3.354, 359, 438; 5.120; 6.399-400; 7.203,
tus, Germ. 28.4 (Rives trans.): “The Treveri and Nervii 231; Ant. 20.70) with the many other Greek statesmen
are quite eager to claim a Germanic origin, as though who reflected on Rome’s power, from Polybius in the
by this bloodline they might distinguish themselves from 2nd-cent. BCE to Plutarch in the 2nd cent. CE. The master
the typically spiritless Gauls.” There was a general sense text is Polybius’ history: he brings the traditional Greek
that the last-conquered Gauls, across the Massif Central concept of fortune—something like chance, luck, and
from Narbonensis, had once been tough tribes (cf. Cae- randomness, a principle opposed to human training,
sar, Bell. gall. 1.1; Balsdon 1979: 65; Momigliano 1971: planning, and discipline (see next note), which makes
50-73, and the note to “restive” at 1.5), though in recent all endeavors, no matter how well prepared, uncertain—
times all of Gaul was becoming softer. to bear on the rise of Rome. Since fortune’s nature is
2352
The 80-year period in question is (roughly) from always to create new things and overturn the status quo
the early 120s to 51 BCE: from the Romans’ first mili- (Polybius 1.4.5), Rome’s steady rise over a half century
tary campaigns across the Alps, and the establishment is its most remarkable achievement (1.4.1).
of Narbonese Gaul (provincia), to Julius Caesar’s pro- Because fortune’s movements are inscrutable, attrib-
tracted campaigns (described in his Gallic War), which uting success to fortune is also a way of denying the
subjected the vast territories W and N of the Massif successful party credit for the achievement; it was a
290 book two

more than their weapons.2355 Surely that is why they are slaves2356 under 1,200 soldiers,2357
when they very nearly2358 have more cities than that!2359
Iberians 374 Nor, with the Iberians,2360 did the gold that was being dug up2361 suffice at all2362 for

2357
common question whether conspicuous achievement was The number is plausible, though hard to verify or
attributable to virtue or to fortune (cf. Polybius 2.49.7; explain precisely. Under Augustus a cohort of 500 was
10.2.5; 15.34.2; 29.22.2; 32.8.4; 39.8.2). In Polybius, this apparently stationed at Lugdunum, increased to 1,000 by
sharp dichotomy supports the work’s Stoicizing ethic: Vitellius, but reduced to 500 again by Vespasian (Saul-
since fortune is beyond one’s control, one should devote nier 1991: 214). Archaeology has turned up remains of
one’s energy not to its uncertain outcomes but to virtu- military camps in the interior of the 3 Gauls, from the
ous action, which is in one’s power—no matter what the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods (Le Bohec 1994:
outcome might be. Plutarch opens his essay On Fortune 165-66).
(Mor. 97c) with a line from Chaeremon, “The ways of Josephus’ Agrippa appears caught between two rhe-
mortals are fortune, not good counsel,” but then proceeds torical impulses: to stress the small number of Roman
to argue in contrast that human effort achieves much. soldiers that hold down vast territories of strong peoples,
The tension is clearest in his essays on “the fortune—or as here, and yet to show that the Romans are capable
the virtue—of Alexander,” where Plutarch defends the of fielding a massive army to control such a people as
famous king against claims that his exploits were merely “the Germani” (2.377). Tacitus insists, however, that the
the result of fortune. In his Fortune of the Romans, by major concentration of forces along the Rhine was “a
contrast, Plutarch puts the emphasis on the fortune of bulwark against Germani and Galli alike” (Ann. 4.5).
the city (“Why is not the case that that fortune put the There could be little doubt that the 8 legions camped
city right at the times of its greatest calamities?” Mor. W of the Rhine, in what had initially been part of Gaul,
324d) and of its great men. In both cases, fortune is created a powerful disincentive to would-be rebels in
not simply impersonal luck, but a sort of charm that Gaul.
2358
attends the great men, and on which they rely, though The phrase ὀλίγου δεῖν was popular among Greek
they are ever in danger of losing it (Mor. 319c-d); it may orators as a slight qualification of their statements con-
be equated with a guardian spirit (δαίµων, Mor. 324b). cerning “all” or “every” or some extreme action (e.g.,
See, with somewhat different emphases, Swain 1996: Isocrates, Arch. 65; Areop. 69; Antid. 159; Demosthenes,
152-60, 354-55. Phil. 3.1; Cor. 20; Aeschines, Ctes. 165). The only his-
In this respect, then, Josephus (especially here in torians known to use it before Josephus were Xenophon
Agrippa’s voice) tends to side with the Greek tradition (Hell. 2.4.21; Mem. 3.10.13) and the highly rhetorical
in shifting the focus from Rome’s achievements (see the Dionysius, who has it a remarkable 29 times. Philo
note to “weapons” in this section) to her enjoyment of employs it 3 times (Plant. 83; Mos. 1.160; Flac. 44).
fortune’s favor now, something that has blessed many Josephus uses it several times in War (here and 1.625;
other nations in the past (and will in the future). See 2.550, 580; 4.349; 6.43) and at Life 393, in just such
further the note to “God” at 2.390. contexts, showing a consistency of authorial hand. Plu-
2355
See the previous note. Cf. Life 17 (noted by Lind- tarch has it more than 3 dozen times.
2359
ner 1972: 22), where Josephus will caution against war Even the qualification “almost” does not save
with Rome on the double ground of the Romans’ mar- Josephus from exaggeration: a laudatory Plutarch (Caes.
tial prowess and their good fortune. Josephus’ rhetorical 15.5) and Appian (Gall. 2) agree that Julius Caesar took
freedom is clear from the fact that his lengthy digression more than 800 cities in Gaul (cf. Paul 1990: 80).
2360
on the Roman army will argue precisely the opposite The peoples of modern Portugal and Spain, origi-
point: “they hold their empire as the achievement of nally in two provinces (Citerior and Ulterior) but since
valor [or virtue], not as a gift of fortune,” and that their 7 BCE in three: Lustiania in the SW and W, S-central
whole training is aimed at overcoming the vicissitudes of Baetica (around the Baetis River), and Tarraconensis in
fortune (3.71, 101, 106-7). Again, however, the extreme the long-settled E/SE plains and across the rugged N
claims of that digression will be almost systematically (Strabo 3.4.20). See Sutherland 1971: 132-51.
2361
undone by the portrait of the legions in the subsequent Or “farmed”: the verb γεωργέω suggests a sur-
narrative, where they are frequently at a loss in the face face-level sifting, refining, or even strip-mining of gold
of both fortune’s adverse turns and surprising Judean ore, not the deep-vein shaft mining that the Romans
valor (cf. Introduction and Mason 2005a). would undertake. Josephus’ Agrippa mentions only the
2356
See the note to “slaves” at 2.349. most valuable of the metals famously mined in Spain,
book two 291

the war in behalf of freedom;2363 nor, for the Ares-mad2364 peoples2365 of the Lusitani2366 and
Cantabri,2367 did such a great distance by land and sea from the Romans [suffice]; nor did

2365
which also included silver, lead, tin, iron, zinc, mercury, See the note to “peoples” at 2.366.
2366
and copper. The main areas were the NW, SW (including Josephus names here two of the three famous
Sierra Morena), and SE extremities. Polybius (34.9.8) Celtiberian tribes (the other being the Asturians). Strabo
apparently reported that the silver mines near Carthago (3.3.3) identifies Lusitania with the entire NW region of
Nova (mod. Cartagena) employed some 40,000 miners. Spain, from the Tagus River, which runs E-W roughly
See Rothenberg and Freijeiro 1981; Domergue 1987, across the middle, to Oceanus on the W and N; he
1990. (I thank my colleague Jonathan Edmondson for acknowledges that these people are now usually called
consultation.) Long before the Romans arrived, gold had Callaicans, with Lusitania having become the name of a
been mined in the southern Sierra Morena; the Romans province bounded by the Durius (Duris) River (3.4.20)—
would open up the northern veins, under constant mili- largely overlapping with modern Portugal, though it
tary supervision, in the territories of the peoples Jose- extends only half as far W, somewhat further N, than
phus will next mention. Lusitania.
2362
This verb (ἐξαρκέω) opens an inclusio, which Josephus’ coupling of Lusitani with Cantabri, as par-
Josephus will close at the end of the Greek sentence ticularly war-like peoples, seems to indicate that he has
(2.375): all the gold of Iberia did not suffice to preserve Strabo’s definition (or one like it) in mind: This NW
their freedom, but a single legion does suffice (same verb sector was the last part of Spain to be conquered by
without prefix) to keep them enslaved to Rome. Rome: “Lusitiania is the greatest of the Iberian nations
2363
See the note to “freedom,” a bedrock theme of the and the nation against which the Romans waged war for
War and of Agrippa’s speech, at 2.259. the longest times” (Strabo 3.3.3). Augustus’ conquest of
2364
After Ares (Mars), the God of war; thus in effect: this region in 27-26 BCE was exceedingly difficult and
war-crazed, martially obsessed. I translate ἀρειµάνια hard to sustain (Mattern 1999: 100). Strabo’s examples
literally to indicate the vividness and strangeness of the of the northern people’s martial character, courage, and
term. Before Josephus it is attested as a proper noun insensibility to pain (e.g., their singing from their crosses
in Diogenes Laertius’ witness (1.8) to a lost dialogue while being crucified), traits attributed to both men and
of Aristotle, which claims that the Magi distinguished women, are drawn from the Cantabrian wars (3.4.17-18;
between a good spirit (Zeus or Ahura Mazda/Ormazd) cf. 3.3.7).
and an evil one (called Hades or Ares-manic [this may In Strabo’s time there were still three legions in the
be simply a genuine effort to transliterate the Zoroastrian northern regions of the province Hispania Tarraconensis,
Angra Mainyu, or it may be deliberately interpretative]). two of these in the W-central area of his Lusitani and
Fragments of Eudemus, Eudoxus, and Theopompus Cantabri, the other along the Pyrenees. Already then the
make the same point. As a common adjective, the word southern-most province of Baetica was a senatorial prov-
is attested before Josephus only in Strabo, who describes ince without a legion, and also the internal part of Ter-
the Gauls as war-crazed, spirited, and quick for battle— raconensis could be described as “toga-clad” because of
though not otherwise unpleasant (4.4.2)—as also the its cooperation with Rome (3.4.20). By Josephus’ time,
war-crazed Celtic Iapodes, now worn out by battling more than a half-century later, the region had produced
Augustus (7.5.4), and in Philo, who characterizes war- or nurtured literary Romans such as Seneca and Lucan,
mania as the vulgar misconception of courage (Virt. 1; and soldiers and statesmen from whose families emper-
cf. Ebr. 115). Particularly significant is Strabo’s claim ors would soon emerge (in Trajan and Hadrian).
2367
(3.3.7) that these people sacrifice hecatombs to Ares In the north-central mountains of the Iberian pen-
before battle. For his remarks on their unique savagery insula, within the large NW area covered by Strabo’s
and insensibility to pain, see 3.3.7, 4.17-18. Josephus’ Lusitainia (3.3.3). Mattern (1999: 100) points out that
contemporary Plutarch uses the word 9 times, suggesting the Cantabri revolted at least 4 times between 24 and 16
a rise in popularity. BCE, in spite of being dealt with harshly each time (Cas-
Josephus’ usage here is evidently closest to Strabo’s sius Dio 53.29; 54.5.1; 54.11, 20.3). After the 3rd revolt
ethnographic use of the word to characterize a people. they were reportedly disarmed, their survivors forced to
His authorial control of Agrippa’s speech is indicated by come down from the Cantabrian mountains and settle
his use of this rare adjective again at 6.46, in a speech in the plains (Florus 2.33.59-60), though this did not
attributed to Titus (where the sense is positive, of sol- prevent a further revolt. For Strabo’s account of their
diers “pumped up” for battle). courage and toughness, see the previous note.
292 book two

neighboring Oceanus,2368 though inflicting a surging tide2369 that is frightening even to2370
the locals. 375 Rather, after extending their weapons beyond the Pillars of Heracles2371
and traversing the Pyrenean Mountains through the clouds,2372 the Romans enslaved2373
these people also. As a garrison—of those who were thus hard to fight and living so far
away—one legion sufficed.2374
Germani 376 Who among you has not learned, by hearsay, about the horde of Germani?2375 No

2368
See the notes at 2.155 and 2.363: the body of only two references to the Pillars of Hercules in Jose-
water commonly thought to encircle the inhabited earth. phus.
2372
The Romans’ recent conquest of long-dreaded Oceanus A reference to the height of the chain, whose
(by invading Britain in 43 CE) was a monumental peaks in the central section reach about 3,350 m/11,000
achievement. Here the reference is to NW Spain, which ft.
2373
is bordered by Oceanus to the W and N (Strabo 3.3.3). See the note to “slaves” at 2.349, and to “free-
2369
The noun ἄµπωτις occurs only here in Josephus. dom” at 2.346.
2374
Strabo, however, uses the term 28 times, about a third This completes the inclusio begun with what did
of these in the same context as Josephus concerning not suffice (the Iberians’ gold), at 2.374; dropping the
the Spanish coast: of the vigorous “ebb-tide,” which he prefix from the verb (see the earlier note) emphasizes
contrasts with the flood-tide in the region (3.2.4, 7, 11; that 1 legion easily suffices.
3.3.3, 5.7, 8). He supports Posidonius against Aristotle, Legio VI Victrix (“victorious”), one of the 3 legions
who had mistakenly imagined that these famous tides that had been in Spain under Augustus and Tiberius
were caused by rocky cliffs along the coast, whereas (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5; down from the 4 or 5 required to
Posidonius correctly describes the coastal land as low pacify the region; cf. Mattern 1999: 100), was the only
and sandy (3.3.3). Strabo does not dispute the impres- one left at the putative time of Agrippa’s speech in 66
siveness of the tides, though, and he (or Posidonius) CE. It would become the base of S. Sulpicius Galba’s
may be Josephus’ source here. For impressively surging support, acclaiming him emperor after Nero’s suicide in
tides in another part of Oceanus, in the E, see Diodorus June of 68 CE; at that time Galba raised another Span-
17.106.6. ish legion to support his bid (VII Galbiana or Hispana,
2370
See the similar construction at 2.381 (used of the later Gemina), which he soon moved to Pannonia; he
treacherous shoals of the Syrtes off N Africa). brought legio X Gemina back to its traditional home in
2371
I.e., the land masses or possibly (originally) man- Spain. In 69 CE the short-lived emperor Vitellius sent
made structures built thereon (Strabo is unsure: 3.5.5-6) the new legion I Adiutrix also to Spain, where it would,
that mark the entrance to the Straits of Gibraltar, closing however, lead the support for Vespasian in the latter part
the Mediterranean (“Our Sea”) in a passage 36 miles of that year (Tacitus, Hist. 3.44); it would soon leave to
(58 km) long and as narrow as 8 miles across (Herodo- join the Flavian general Cerialis against the Batavians,
tus 1.203; 2.33; 4.8, 42-43, 152, 181, 185, 96; 8.132). along with the other 2 Spanish legions, VI Victrix and X
The Pillars are so called because Heracles was said to Hispana/Gemina (Tacitus, Hist. 4.68; 5.19. See Parker
have erected them during the Labor that required him to 1992: 99-100, 140-44).
bring back the oxen of Geryon, who lived on an island Through the middle of the 70s, when Josephus was
in Oceanus by Cadiz (Hesiod, Theog. 979; Pausanias writing War, Spain was apparently empty of legions.
1.35.7-8; cf. “Gadeira” at 2.363). The Pillars marked This may explain his surprising use of the past (aorist)
the transition to terrifying, unexplored Oceanus, thought tense (ἤρκεσεν), betraying his own authorial perspec-
by Josephus and most contemporaries to encircle the tive, though the imperfect might have suited that pur-
inhabited earth (cf. 2.155 with notes; Romm 1992: 9-45; pose better; the Latin translation has the more expected
see further 2.382). Phoenician explorers a millennium present (satis est), as do other modern translators (M-B:
or more before Josephus’ time had established the sig- “jetzt genügt”). Spain would only receive a legion again
nificance of the Pillars, perhaps connecting them with a when Legio VII (now Gemina) returned—after support-
shrine to Melkart in Tyre. Strabo mentions as but one ing Otho and then Vespasian in Rome, under Antonius
possibility (3.5.5) what was later generally accepted: the Primus—at some point in the later 70s, to remain there
Pillars were the Rock of Gibraltar on the N and Mt. for centuries (Parker 1992: 147).
2375
Abilyx on the S (Jebel Musa or possibly Mt. Acha in As Rives (1999: 1-41, 65) clearly shows, Ger-
Spanish N Africa, at the Ceuta isthmus at the NE tip mani was a convenient unifying term applied by Roman
of Morocco). See the note at 2.382 below; these are the authors to a number of tribes who evidently saw no such
book two 293

doubt2376 you have often seen the strength and size of their bodies,2377 since Romans have
their captives everywhere.2378 377 But these men, although they apportion among them-
selves2379 a boundless land, and have aspirations bigger than their bodies, as well as the
soul that holds death in contempt2380 and tempers that are more violent than those of the
wildest beasts,2381 have the Rhenus as a boundary to their impulse.2382 Being dominated
by eight legions2383 of Romans, those who have been conquered are slaves,2384 while their
nation as a whole is preserving itself by fleeing.2385

unity among themselves: Suebi (itself an umbrella term), when their master was killed (Ant. 19.119, 125-26, 138,
Batavi, Chatti, Cherusci, Tencteri, Chauci, Cimbri, Peu- 148-49, 152-53, 215); the connection of Germany and
cini, Veneti, Fenni, and many others. Rives’ rich com- its legions with contenders in the civil wars (War 4.546,
mentary to Tacitus’ Germania seems the best place to 586, 595, 648); and the Batavian revolt of 69-70 (War
begin a study of the region and its various peoples in 7.76-89). Conceivably, Josephus’ Agrippa is ironically
Josephus’ period. signaling to his Roman literary audience the artificiality
2376
This is the only occurrence in War of the adverb of the speech.
2379
δήπου, though it appears (more properly) as two words See the note at 2.365; also 2.382 below.
2380
at 2.36; see note there to “I presume.” This phrase is characteristic of Josephus in War
2377
This is a point of comparison with the Judeans (see the note at 2.60); its use here highlights his control
themselves: on the characteristic phrase see 2.268 (in the over the speech of Agrippa.
2381
context of the Caesarean conflict). Josephus’ authorial Tacitus also dwells on the martial quality of their
control of Agrippa’s speech is clear from a very similar lives, emphasizing that it is the only real criterion for
line in his Titus’ speech to the rebel leaders (War 6.331): male virtue (Germ. 3, 6-9, 13-16, 30-31, 35). But Taci-
Are they relying upon the “strength of [their] bodies” tus, who admires the nobility of their primitive ways,
(same phrase as here)? “But you know that the Germans especially as reflected in marital fidelity and child-
are our slaves!” Tacitus (Germ. 4) describes a remark- rearing (18-19), does not compare them to wild beasts
ably uniform appearance: “fierce blue eyes, tawny hair, in general—though he mentions drunken brawling that
bodies that are big, but strong only in attack.” He later ends in death, as well as serious gambling (22, 24.2).
attempts to explain their remarkable size and strength Josephus too seems to make only their anger animal-like
(Germ. 20): “In every home they grow up, naked and in its ferocity (to highlight the Roman achievement).
2382
filthy, into those long limbs and large bodies that amaze This is an ironic claim. As Josephus’ Roman audi-
us so. . . . Love comes late to the young men, and their ence would know, it was at least as correct to say that
virility is not drained thereby. Nor are maidens hurried the Rhine marked the limit to Roman ambitions. From
along: of identical age and similar height, they match about 12 BCE Augustus, dispatching Drusus as com-
their mates in strength, and the children reflect their par- mander, had established a unified province of Germania
ents’ vigour” (trans. Rives 1999; see his commentary ad between the Rhine and the Elbe (roughly the western
loc. for parallels). Rives notes (p. 129) archaeological half of modern Germany), but that project was shat-
research suggesting that average Germans were 5 ft. 6 tered when Quinctilius Varus, the governor in 9 CE,
in./1.67 m (male) and 5 ft. 2 in./1.57 (female). perished with his 3 legions (the “Varian disaster”) in an
2378
The combination of “no doubt” and this explana- ambush in the Teutoburg Forest; see the note to “Varus”
tion actually feeds doubts about the claim that Agrippa’s at 1.21. That was the battle that stopped Rome (Wells
audience would know what Germans were like. Certainly 2003), not the Germani, forcing Rome to abandon the
in Josephus’ Rome it would not be difficult to see them German project and accept the Rhine as the limit of its
(since Batavians traditionally formed part of the imperial expansion for the time being. Although minor explora-
bodyguard, and others might well be seen as captives). tions continued across the river, Claudius, at the time
But since the Romans had no permanent presence in of his preparations to invade Britain in 43 CE, with-
Jerusalem, and the auxiliaries in Judea were drawn from drew Roman forces to the Rhine as a fixed border: see
Caesarea and Sebaste, it is not clear how Agrippa’s audi- Mommsen 1887: 1.127-38. As Josephus was writing,
ence in 66 CE should “often” have seen Germans. In Vespasian was beginning to venture further again: he
Josephus’ narratives, Germans appear in Judea only as established a limes in the Neckar-Black Forest region,
part of Herod’s exotic bodyguard, at his funeral parade in the SW “elbow” of the Rhine.
2383
alongside units from Gaul and Thrace (War 1.672; Ant. Although there were normally 8 legions in the
17.198). Otherwise, they appear only in Roman contexts: area, at the time of Agrippa’s speech (66 CE) there were
Gaius’ German bodyguard, which went on a rampage apparently only 7: in Germania Inferior (the region W
294 book two

Brettani 378 Now, you who rely on the walls of Hierosolyma, consider also the ‘wall’ of the
Brettani,2386 for the Romans sailed [there]2387 and enslaved2388 even those people who are
surrounded by Oceanus2389 and inhabit an island no smaller than the world2390 of our

of the Rhine: mod. Netherlands, northern Belgium, in this period is in Tacitus’ Agricola (10-17, on which
Westfalia W of the Rhine and Rheinland) I Germanica, see Birley 1999) and Annals (14.29-37; bks. 7-10, which
V Alaudae, XV Primigenia, and XVI Gallica; in Ger- included Claudius’ conquest, are lost). Current scholar-
mania Superior (S of Belgica: eastern France, northern ship on Roman Britain depends heavily on archaeology
Switzerland, and the Black Forest area of Germany), IV to fill in the gaps. See Collingwood and Myres 1990;
Macedonica, XXI Rapax, and XXII Primigenia (Parker Webster 1993, 1999; Shotter 2004.
1992: 140). After the Batavian rebellion, which required On nature’s “walls” see 2.371 above (Gaul) and 386
9 legions, and the operations of T. Flavius Clemens in below (Alexandria and Egypt). As the context shows,
72-73 CE—so at Josephus’ time of writing—there were the natural wall here is Oceanus, beyond (or in) which
8 legions again: VI Victrix, X Gemina, XXI Rapax, and Britain lies. Although no constructed wall could surpass
XXII Primigenia in Germania Inferior; in Germania it for defensive purposes (a point still important in Hit-
Superior, I Adiutrix, VIII Augusta, XI Claudia, and XIV ler’s calculations), Agrippa declares, even the English
Gemina (Parker 1992: 146-47). Channel was not sufficient to keep the Romans from
Whether Josephus is anachronistically reflecting conquering the island.
2387
the situation at his time of writing or simply citing the Claudius’ invasion force, under the senator Aulus
standard configuration (Tacitus, Ann. 4.5), we cannot Plautius, was nearly the same size as Caesar’s in the sec-
know. See the Excursus above. See also 2.373: Josephus ond invasion (54 BCE): 4 legions instead of Caesar’s 5,
obscures the fact that the Rhine legions guarded not only but with more auxiliary cavalry. It seems that Claudius’
the Germani but, as importantly, Gaul. generals used Caesar’s account as a guide (Collingwood
2384
See the note to “slaves” at 2.349, to “freedom” and Myres 1990: 78-80). Claudius himself visited Britain
at 2.346. for a couple of weeks following the invasion, enough to
2385
This is peculiar phrasing, no doubt influenced associate himself with victory and justify the military
by events between the story time of Agrippa’s speech glory reflected in his triumph.
2388
(66 CE) and Josephus’ writing it in the 70s. In keeping See the note to “freedom” (a prominent theme of
with the rhetoric of the whole speech, Agrippa should War) at 2.346, to “slaves” at 2.349. Agrippa’s language is
be saying that the Germans, though enjoying every natu- not that of diplomatic nuance but of Realpolitik, designed
ral advantage, submit to Rome. But he cannot say that. to engage interlocutors who resent their “enslavement”
Just 3 years after the ostensible time of the speech, parts to a foreign master. Tacitus, writing two to three decades
of Germany and Gaul exploded in the Batavian-Gallic later, can express both sides of the semantic coin. On
Revolt, in which native aristocrats who had become the one hand (Agric. 13): “The Britons themselves sub-
Roman citizens led auxiliary armies and even defecting mit readily to conscription and taxes and the obligations
legionaries (during the Roman civil war) in a bid for imposed by the empire, so long as there are no abuses.
“freedom” from Rome. In contrast to Agrippa’s main They have now been broken in to obedience, but not yet
point, Tacitus’ report of the speech by the leader Iulius to slavery.” On the other hand, he allows Iulius Civilis,
Civilis, as he tries to rally his followers, declares (Hist. leader of the Batavian revolt, to claim that “slavery was
4.17): “Let Syria, Asia Minor, and the East be slaves, driven from Germany” by the defeat of Varus in 9 CE,
since they are habituated to kings. Many now living in and to hope for the same W of the Rhine now (Hist.
Gaul were born before the days of tribute. Only recently 4.17); so, being subject to Rome is viewed by the sub-
in fact [60 years earlier] was Quintilius Varus killed, and jects as slavery indeed.
2389
slavery driven out of Germany.” See the notes at 2.155 and 2.363: this is the for-
2386
I.e., Britons. See 2.363 with note. There the bidding body of water commonly thought to encircle the
immediate reference is to Caesar’s abortive invasions inhabited earth; what we know as the English Channel
of the S in 55-54 BCE, whereas this paragraph elabo- was part of it. The observation is germane here because
rates on the situation created by Claudius’ more enduring the Roman commander Plautius reportedly faced a
conquest of 43 CE and following; for the intervening mutiny when he announced his plan to cross to Eng-
period, which was marked by the growth of communities land: “they were indignant at the prospect of conduct-
under Belgic invaders, see Collingwood and Myres 1990: ing military campaigns outside of the world (ἔξω τῆς
54-75. Much of our literary source material for Britain οἰκουµένης)” (Dio 60.19.2).
book two 295

parts,2391 and four legions2392 closely guard such a big island.2393

379 And why is it necessary to say much when even the Parthians,2394 that most bel-
licose people,2395 ruling so many nations2396 and having equipped themselves with so large

2390
See the note to this word at 2.360. 48 CE). Tacitus (Agric. 8) claims that the legate Vettius
2391
Britain is indeed several times larger than Judea, Bolanus (69-71 CE) governed “with a gentler hand than
even including Galilee (the biblical “Dan to Beersheva” was appropriate for an untamed province.” That is why
is about 144 miles [232 km] N-S, not counting the the 4 legions were necessary, there being no plausible
deeper Negev). The classic statement of Britain’s dimen- threat from outside Britain. The initial conquests had set-
sions, which Caesar claims he did not know before his tled the already friendly Atrabates, S of the Thames, and
campaign there and so he sent an agent to sit off the the Catuvelauni N of the river, as well as the area W to
coast and report (Bell. gall. 4.20-21), is in the descripton Exeter. But Caratacus, king of the Belgae, continued to
that accompanies the narrative of his second invasion offer resistance until his capture in 51 CE. The Romans
(5.13). Strangely, that comprehensive account could not had allied by treaty the Regni in the SW (under Cogidub-
have come from his scout or from his own brief expedi- nus), the Iceni in East Anglia (under Prasutagus), and the
tions in the S: he must have relied on earlier sources. Brigantes, who occupied much of N England (Yorkshire,
Caesar gives the perimeter as about 2,000 Roman miles, Durham, Northumberland).
envisioning the island as a triangle (with angles at the Of these, the Iceni would famously revolt under the
SE [Kent], S, and NE [facing Germany]), with sides of royal widow Boudica in 59/60-61, generating a major
800 miles on the N (facing open water), 500 on the S conflict with massive loss of life. A few years later (69
side (facing Gaul), and 700 on the side facing Ireland CE), the Brigantian queen Cartamandua was attacked
(and Spain!). Since the Roman mile was shorter than by her ex-husband Venutius, drawing Rome into another
ours (1,618 yards, 1.48 km), these distances are close to fierce contest. She was extracted, but Venutius temporar-
reality, though the mental image that Caesar offers (simi- ily won the kingdom. Only under Vespasian’s legates
larly Tacitus, Agric. 10) has proven elusive—confirming Vettius Bolanus (69-71 CE), Q. Petillius Cerialis (71-74),
that the Romans were more concerned, and much more
Sex. Iulius Frontinus (74-77), and Cn. Iulius Agricola
familiar, with linear distance and itineraries than with
(77-83) were the N and W pacified—though Scotland (to
scale maps (Mattern 1999: 24-80, esp. 52-53; Adams
the extent conquered) was apparently abandoned in 87
and Laurence 2001: 7-66).
2392 CE. Cf. Collingwood and Myres 1990: 76-119; Shotter
The 4 legions assembled by Claudius for the inva-
2004: 20-38.
sion of Britain in 43 CE—II Augusta (commanded by 2394
The vast Parthian empire is an important back-
Vespasian, princeps at Josephus’ time of writing), IX
ground feature of the Judean war against Rome and of
Hispania, XIV Gemina, and XX Valeria—were matched
Josephus’ account; see 1.5 with notes and Introduction.
by auxiliary forces and supplemented by cavalry for
Although Agrippa seems here to treat that empire as part
a total of about 45,000 troops (Tacitus, Ann. 14.32.6;
Parker 1992: 129, 133; Shotter 2004: 20-23; Bishop and of the Roman world, at 2.388-39 he will mention the
Coulston 1993: 209; Pollard 2006: 212). Legio XIV was Parthians again as an alien world beyond the Euphrates,
moved by Nero in 66 CE for a campaign in the Bospo- in order to dismiss them as possible allies. This dual
rus (Tacitus, Hist. 1.6; Parker 1992: 139; Webster 1993: use illustrates the two-sided conception of the world as
40-60 on the movements and fortresses of the 50s), so both more or less Roman and yet including large foreign
that shortly before the time of Agrippa’s speech only territories, as well as the two-sided conception of the
3 legions remained in Britain; this was the case until Parthians as both an independent empire and yet in some
the Flavian general P. Petilius Cerialis went to Britain way subject to the Romans (see the note to “Romans”
as governor after suppressing the Batavian revolt in 70 in this section).
2395
CE, taking Legio II Adiutrix with him (Parker 1992: See the note to “people” at 2.366. Parthians suf-
146). It is again unclear whether Josephus means to fered from the same sort of bifurcated image as other
have Agrippa cite the reasonably stable arrangement, foreigners (such as Gauls): they were both ridiculed for
outside the turmoil of the late 60s, or whether this is a luxurious effeminacy and respected for ferocious fighting
simple anachronism reflecting his own time of writing skills (especially in connection with horsemanship and
(as Parker 1992: 140 n. 1). archery). Cf. Schneider 1998: 98-109, 117.
2396
2393
Agrippa’s rhetoric obscures the fact that most of The Parthian empire was indeed a vast collection
Britain remained unconquered at the time of his speech, of tribes, some represented by the 72 Seleucid admin-
and that resistance and rebellion had hardly abated since istrative districts (Appian, Syr. 62), which seem to have
Claudius’ invasion (cf. Webster 1993 for the decade after continued through Josephus’ time, and some in the 18
296 book two

a force, send hostages to the Romans,2397 and in Italy it is possible to see—with ‘peace’
as justification2398—the nobility from the east serving in slavery?2399
Tougher nations 380 While nearly everyone under the sun2400 is making obeisance before2401 the Romans’
enslaved weapons,2402 will you alone go to war, not considering the end of the Carchedoni,2403
who, though boasting the great Annibas2404 and their nobility from the Phoenices,2405 fell

client kingdoms (Pliny, Nat. 6.112-14), such as Adi- chastising the rebel leaders before his final assault. Did
abene. See Introduction. the rebels place confidence in superior generalship? “But
2397
From the time of Augustus (RG 32), the Parthi- you knew that even the Carthaginians were taken” (an
ans routinely sent young members of the royal family to allusion to their Barcene leaders, especially Hannibal).
grow up in Rome, and also asked the Senate to recog- The Carthaginians were an enormously successful
nize their new monarchs (Tacitus, Ann. 2.1-4, 56, 58, 68; trading people based in the fortified city of Carthage,
6.31-7; 11.8; 12.10-14). In 6 CE a Parthian delegation established in the late 8th century BCE on a peninsula N
came to Rome (diverted to Tiberius in Greece) asking of modern Tunis (Tunisia). Masters of ship construction
that one of their young men who had grown up there, and naval warfare, they offered the most consistent and
Vonones, be returned to serve as Parthian king. He went, effective challenge to Rome’s increasing power from the
and ruled from 7/8 to 11/12 CE; but his foreign ways, mid-3rd to the mid-2nd centuries BCE. Accordingly, they
Tacitus wryly narrates, quickly led to his overthrow (Ann. play a prominent role in Polybius’ history of Rome’s rise,
2.2). In 40 CE, L. Vitellius exacted a peace treaty from from the first book (proto-history), which their early con-
the troublesome Parthian king Artabanus, which required flicts with Rome dominate, to the fall of their city at the
him to send his sons to Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 6.32, 36-7; end of bk. 38. Other important sources are Livy’s Roman
Dio 59.27.3-4). On ancient political “hostages” in gen- History and Appian’s Hannibalic and Punic Wars.
eral, see Walker 2005. Although Josephus’ rhetorical point about Carthage’s
2398
See the note at 2.285. fall in 146 BCE is clear, the destruction of the city was
2399
In the context of Agrippa’s speech, this “slavery” not the end of the Carthaginian people (there were, e.g.,
is political and metaphorical (the kind to which provinces many deserters and then captive slaves), any more than
are also subject: 2.349, 355, 365); the Parthian royals the fall of Corinth in the same year meant the end of the
were not literal slaves. But the view of many Parthians Corinthians or Achaeans, or the recent fall of Jerusalem
about accepting their king from the Roman princeps is meant the end of the Judeans—this last an important
well captured by Tacitus, as he describes the reception point for Josephus. In his time Carthage had been rebuilt
of the Roman-educated Vonones I, in 7/8 CE: “And now (starting under Augustus) into a prosperous Roman city,
the throne of the Arsacids was held—and dispensed—as which would reach a new height of success in the 2 nd
one of the Roman provinces! Where was that glory of century and then become famous as a cultural center and
those who had killed Crassus, who had ejected Antony, home to important Christian teachers.
2404
if a chattel of the Caesar, after tolerating slavery all these This is the only reference to Hannibal (247- ca.
years (si mancipium Caesaris, tot per annos servitutem 182 BCE) in Josephus. From age 9 (237 BCE) he was
perpessum), should govern Parthians?” in Spain with his father, Hamilcar Barca, as Carthage
2400
This kind of exaggeration was common in Jose- rapidly expanded its influence there, with Hannibal’s
phus’ time, even though everyone knew that India and brother-in-law Hasdrubal establishing Carthago Nova
the massive Parthian empire, not to mention the vaguely (mod. Cartagena) in 228. In 219 BCE Hannibal besieged
conceived “silk people” of the remote E, were not occu- and captured the Spanish city of Saguntum, a Roman
pied by Rome. Strabo, concluding his survey of the ally, and so precipitated war with Rome. The aim seems
inhabited earth, observes that “the Romans occupy the to have been to draw away many of Rome’s allies, hum-
best and most famous [part] of it, having surpassed all bling the great city so that Carthage could retake its
former rulers” (17.3.24). former holdings of Sicily and Sardinia and pursue its
2401
See the note at 2.360. economic interests in the W without interference. To
2402
The tone of Thucydidean-Polybian Realpolitik that end, Hannibal boldly crossed the Alps in autumn of
continues: it is not Roman moral virtue or even mani- 218—losing many soldiers in the process—and entered
fest destiny, but their raw military power that must be Italy itself, crossing the Apennines in 217 and enjoying
accommodated. spectacular success in central and S Italy, famously in
2403
Standard Greek form of the Latin-based “Cartha- the defeat of a massive Roman army led by both consuls
ginians.” At 6.332 Titus will cite the Carthaginians while at Cannae in Apulia (216 BCE).
book two 297

beneath the right hand of Scipio?2406 381 Neither Cyreneans2407—Lacones by ancestry,2408

nor Marmaridae—the people2409 extending all the way to the parched [land],2410 nor the
Syrtes—frightening even to2411 those hearing [about them],2412 nor Nasamones,2413 or yet

Although many of Rome’s Italian allies did defect, the of the local Libyans by Greek Dorians resulted in the
next few years, including a failed march on Rome in 211, creation of 5 main cities (Cyrene, its port Apollonia,
brought only temporary victories and mixed results, as Barca, Arsinoe, and Berenice), which along with other
the Romans generally avoided open warfare and began towns comprised Cyrenaica. Although accepted by Rome
to exhaust Hannibal. He was recalled to Carthage in in 96 BCE as a bequest and annexed by the Senate in
203 BCE and, after defeat at the Battle of Zama (202) 75/4 BCE, Cyrenaica was temporarily returned to Ptole-
reached terms with the Romans. In 196/95, however, he maic control by Marc Antony. Under Augustus it became
fled to the Seleucid Antiochus III, ahead of charges that a senatorial province together with Crete, governed from
he had been conspiring with that king against Rome. Cyrene by a praetorian proconsul. Although small, it
From there he was a refugee from Roman pursuit until remained prosperous, becoming a famous center of both
his death in Bithynia. trade and the arts.
2405 2408
See the note to “Carchedonians” above. A recherché allusion meant to highlight a warlike
2406
P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (185/4- heritage from the territory of Sparta: Laconia. Herodotus
129 BCE), born to L. Aemilius Paullus and adopted as a tells the story of Cyrene’s (7th-cent. BCE) founding as
child by P. Cornelius Scipio, was distinguished by ances- the result of colonization from Thera (mod. Santorini),
try, by adoption, and by his personal achievements (cos. the southernmost of the Cycladic Islands in the Aegean
147, 129 BCE; censor 142 BCE). During his first consul- (4.150-67), after noting that the Theraeans themselves
ship he returned to Africa, where he had been fighting had been colonized by Spartans (in the 9th cent. BCE;
as a tribune with great distinction, to besiege and punish Herodotus 4.147-48). Strabo, possibly Josephus’ source,
Carthage with destruction (in early 146 BCE). While simply states that Cyrene was colonized by Thera, “a
still a teenager he had begun a life-long friendship and Laconian island” (17.3.21). Significantly for Agrippa’s
mentor-relationship with Polybius, Josephus’ principal point here, Strabo remarks that Cyrenaica produced
model for War (see Introduction): Polybius 31.23-30. many men who were able to defend its freedom.
2409
Although Scipio is named only here in Josephus’ works, See the note at 2.366.
2410
it is not difficult to see echoes of his character in Jose- One of the main things that Strabo says about
phus’ portrait of the young general Titus. the Marmaridae, whom he locates along the S border of
Josephus’ Agrippa artfully conflates the 3 Punic wars, Cyrenaica, reaching as far as Ammon, the sacred city to
which covered more than a century (cf. Appian, Hanni- the W of Egypt in deepest E Libya (17.3.23), is that they
balic War; Punic Wars), into a compressed sentence. The occupy a “barren and arid region” (cf. 17.3.1: “lacking
first (264-241 BCE) was led by Hannibal’s father Hamil- water”). In his only other use of the adjective διψάς (War
car Barca, and involved the Romans in their first for- 3.49), Josephus will stress that Galilee and Samaria are
ays into naval warfare in and around Sicily. The second utterly free of such desert areas, a condition reflected in
(218-201), led by Hannibal, took place largely on Italian their robust populations.
2411
soil, where the early defeat of the Romans at Cannae See the similar construction at 2.374 (of the oce-
was only gradually reversed. The third (149-146 BCE) anic tides on the Spanish coast).
2412
resulted from the eventual refusal of the Carthaginian In Greek the feminine definite article warns us that
senate, after surrendering many leading men and mili- Josephus momentarily shifts from listing peoples who
tary equipment (as punishment for having unsuccessfully have submitted to Rome to a pair of naturally occurring
attacked the Roman client king Masinissa in neighbor- defenses against Roman domination: Syrtis Minor and
ing Numidia), to abandon Carthage as the Roman Sen- Syrtis Maior. The former, Little Syrtis, was a large bay to
ate demanded; rather than see their city destroyed, they the S of Carthage with a reported circuit of 1,600 stadia
opted to fight (Polybius 36.3-8; 38.7-8). After a difficult (200 miles, 320 km) and enclosing two islands, the one
campaign, the Romans under Scipio besieged, captured, on the SE extremity (Meninx) being the traditional place
looted, and burned the city. of Homer’s Lotus-eaters (Strabo 17.3.17). The latter was
2407
Inhabitants of the Mediterranean headlands of the very deep bay (mod. Gulf of Sidra) between Lepcis
modern NE Libya. Their capital was Cyrene (by the Magna to the W and the Cyrenean promontory to the E.
modern village of Shahhat), about 12 km from the coast Strabo (17.3.20) gives the circuit of this gulf as 3,920
on the heights of Jebel el Akdar. Successive colonization stadia (about 500 miles, 800 km)—and notes with awe
298 book two

Mauri2414 or the countless mass of Nomades,2415 have checked the Romans’ exploits.2416
382 They have subdued this entire third portion of the world,2417 the nations of which are

that M. Cato’s army covered it in 30 days. Most relevant Carthage (14.1.7, 2.8, 4.2, 9.2).
is Strabo’s description of the gulf’s treacherous waters: Numidian territory had been vast, to the W and S of
ships sailing within sight of the coastline, as the standard Carthaginian holdings, centered in Cirta (modern Con-
practice was, often ran aground in unexpectedly shal- stantine, Algeria) to the E of Mauretania; the region had
low waters and had no hope of escape. Similarly, Poly- long been involved in trade with the Greek world. Note
bius recounts how two consuls leading armies against the use of the term to include various tribes at Polybius
the Carthaginians in Sicily ran into trouble with shoals 3.33.1. By Josephus’ time, most of this territory had been
around the Lesser Syrtis (on account of inexperience joined to new provinces (Africa, then Africa Nova, then
with these waters: 1.39.2-3). Again, however, rhetoric Africa Proconsularis), and Cirta had been removed, as
trumps facts. It is not as though the Romans needed to a Roman colony federated with 3 other cities, leaving
enter the Greater Syrtis at all: there were excellent har- Numidia as a rump province N of Cirta (mod. NE Alge-
bors in Alexandria, Cyrenaica, and points W to Carthage ria). Cirta and its territory would be restored to Numidia
and beyond. by Hadrian; Diocletian would make it the capital of an
2413
Herodotus describes the Nasamones shortly after enlarged Numidia Cirtensis; Constantine, renaming Cirta
his account of Cyrene’s foundation (4.172): they are the after himself, would make it the capital of all Numidia
5th Libyan people W of the Egyptians. Distinctive cus- again. Given Josephus’ reference to a “countless” popu-
toms there concern mainly their polygamy and promis- lation, he appears to be using the term to indicate the
cuity, on the one hand, their divination and oaths on the traditional region of the Numidians, in keeping with his
other. Strabo has to explain to his audience that this is tendency throughout this speech to indicate ethnic ter-
a Libyan tribe (17.3.20, 23). Why Josephus singles out ritories rather than political jurisdictions (cf. “Lusitani”
the obscure Nasamones for mention here, while omitting at 2.374).
2416
dozens of more famous tribes in the area (e.g., Gaetuli, Greek ἀρεταί. Although Josephus uses the noun
Libyphoenicians, Garamantes) is not clear. Perhaps he nearly 300 times, often in the sense of moral virtue in
wanted to display his (Agrippa’s) learning. Ironically, contrast to bad behavior, he uses the plural form (as
however, Domitian’s governor Flaccus would soon anni- here) only 15 times, and this is the first occurrence in
hilate this people (85-86 CE) for the very reason that War . It is particularly clear in War that he uses the plural
they revolted, in response to a forcible exaction of tribute in contexts having to do with the older and root meaning
(Dio 67.4.6)—not unlike the Judeans. of the word: manly, martial qualities and the resulting
2414
Here is another indication of Josephus’ Roman exploits (War 3.2, 380; 5.127; 6.39 [Titus tells despon-
setting and expected audiences. Strabo (17.3.2) notes dent legionaries that Judean setbacks are due to their
that Greeks (as he himself) call this people Μαυρούσιοι, valiant exploits (aretai)], 63 [synonymous with “great
whereas the Romans and the natives use Mauri achievements”], 134 [courageous or valiant actions];
(Μαῦροι)—as Josephus does, though writing in Greek. 7.12 [valiant actions]; Ant. 2.7; 3.87; 4.140, 184; esp.
These are the Mauretanians, who occupied what is now 7.307 [linking these aretai with subjection of lands and
Morocco and N Algeria (cf. Strabo, 17.3.4, 7-8). On conquest of great peoples], 317). So Agrippa is not
Mauretania under Juba I and II, see the notes to “Ioba” speaking here of the moral virtues of the Romans, but
and “Libya” at 2.115 above. After the death of Juba II’s of their potent exploits.
2417
heir (Ptolemy, d. 40 CE), in 44 Claudius created two See the note to this term at 2.360. Josephus’
provinces under the governorship of equestrian procura- Agrippa appears to mean the 3rd continent, after Europe
tors and guarded by auxiliaries: Mauretania Tingitana to and Asia—the pair traditionally held to comprise the
the W (roughly N Morocco) and Caesariensis to the E inhabited earth (Herodotus 4.36; Munn 2006: 178-220).
(roughly N/NW Algeria). Strabo observes that many writers divide the world
2415
The proper noun occurs only here in Josephus. into 3 continents: Europe, Asia, and Libya (17.3.1,
Although in its adjectival sense (“pastoral” tribes) the 24): lacking any understanding of Africa’s (“Libya’s”)
word was applied by ancient writers to various nomadic size, he scoffs at the notion that the 3 might be equiva-
peoples, the context here indicates “Numidians.” They lent, suggesting that Libya might even be smaller than
were famous from Polybius as highly effective cavalry Europe. Less likely: the allusion might conceivably have
soldiers, first as a crucial component of the Carthaginian to do with Ephorus’ reported division of the earth (in
mercenary forces combating Rome (1.19.3; 78.1; 3.45.1, his lost On Europe) into 4 parts, with Indians, Ethio-
65.1, 68.1, 116.5; 11.21.1), later as Roman allies against pians, Celts, and Scythians holding the positions clos-
book two 299

not easily enumerated, marked off by the Atlantic Sea and also the Pillars of Heracles2418
and distributing2419 the countless Ethiopes2420 all the way to the Red Sea.2421 383 But quite
apart from their annual harvests, which feed the masses in Rome2422 for eight months,2423

est to the 4 winds on the outer edges (Strabo 1.2.28). needed supplementation from other sources. Augustus
2418
I.e., the land points creating the Straits of Gibral- (RG 15) mentions handouts to the masses reaching
tar, traditionally held to mark the limits of the inhabited 320,000, 250,000, and 200,000 citizens, in a progressive
earth to the W and the beginning of Oceanus (as 2.375 restriction of the entitlement; each allotment was intended
above). This is the only mention of the Atlantic in Jose- for two persons. Garnsey and Saller (1987: 83-84) esti-
phus. It recalls a note in Polybius, who had been part mate that 670,000 free Romans (a substantial majority
of an exploratory journey down the W coast of Africa of the 1 million population) were affected by the grain
(16.29.6): “it is impossible to sail from the sea called by dole, not counting the 300,000 or so slaves in the city;
some Oceanus and by others the Atlantic [i.e., “of Atlas”; that the dole required 80-100,000 tonnes (12-15,000,000
cf. Herodotus 1.203—a detractor from the Oceanus con- Roman modii) of wheat per year; that Rome’s total con-
cept] into our own sea [sc. the Mediterranean, mare nos- sumption of wheat was 200,000 tonnes per year; and that
trum], except by passing through the mouth of it at the considerably more must have been shipped each year to
Pillars of Heracles.” allow for loss and spoilage en route.
2419 2423
Or “allotting, sustaining, supporting, hosting” Josephus paints a simple scenario according to
(νέµω). See the note to “apportion among themselves” which Africa (and Mauretania?) provide Rome’s grain
at 2.365. Agrippa’s point seems to be that this land is supply for 8 months, with Egypt covering the other 4
so vast that it distributes tribal centers to the famously (2.386). In reality, Rome’s enormous demand for grain
countless Ethiopians, who live along the entire length of (estimated at 2-300,000 tonnes annually) was met by
Oceanus (see next note). merchants from around the Mediterranean (e.g., Italy,
2420
Josephus has a significant interest in the feared Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and the eastern provinces); Sic-
and romanticized Ethiopians (cf. Ferguson 1975: 12-19), ily was particularly important (cf. Paul 1990; Erdkamp
as we see in the traditional story he relates of Moses’ 2005: 206-58). Cf. Aristides, Rom. 12: “Your farms are
military campaign against them, which resulted in the Egypt, Sicily, and the civilized part of Africa.” T. Mom-
lawgiver’s marriage to the defeated king’s daughter (Ant. msen (1887: 2.367) argued that in Cicero’s time Rome
2.239-82; cf. Feldman’s notes in BJP 3)—a feat all the depended heavily on African grain, and after Egypt was
more remarkable, his audience would know, because the annexed (30 BCE) there was an approximately equal
Persian Cambyses had faced overwhelming defeat in the 3-way share from Africa, Egypt, and the combined
region (Herodotus 3.25). The Ethiopians were gener- resources of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Baetica. He thus
ally understood to be the southernmost of all peoples, seems to include Egypt’s share in Africa’s 8-month provi-
whose vaguely defined territory ran the entire length sion. Although that may well have approximated the his-
of the inhabited earth (perhaps bisected by the Arabian torical reality, it does not seem to be Agrippa’s meaning
peninsula), bordered by Oceanus on the S and mirroring here, since he introduces Egypt as a new and different
the Hyperboreans or possibly Scythians in the N (Strabo subject (2.384) and does not mention grain from other
1.2.28; 2.5.33; 17.2.1-3, 3.23 end—acknowledging that sources.
the limits of Ethiopia are unexplored). In Roman times Augustus had established an important equestrian
their center was considered to be S of Egypt, near the post (praefectus annonae) for the administration of grain
sources of the Nile, roughly in modern Sudan and storage and distribution in the city. There were different
Ethiopia (Strabo 17.1.4), specifically in the kingdom arrangements for the masses and for the few rich folks
of Meroe, with which Rome had ongoing relations. Cf. (who could make their own arrangements to import food
Romm 1992: 45-66, with bibliography; further “Ethio- of all kinds). The general grain shipment was encour-
pia” in 2.384. aged by incentives for the shippers: under Claudius, citi-
2421
Although Josephus’ term (Ἐρυθρὴ θάλασσα) zenship and exemption from penalties for singleness or
often referred to the Indian Ocean in earlier authors childlessness (Garnsey and Saller 1987: 88). Only gradu-
(Herodotus 1.180; 2.11, 158; 4.42; LSJ s.v.), he uses it ally, over the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, did the merchants’
consistently to mean the Red Sea (Ant. 1.39, 221, 239; private contracts involving Roman collegia develop into
2.257, 315; 6.140; 8.163; 9.217, 245; 15.317). the equivalent of a state-run enterprise.
2422
A reference to the grain dole (frumentatio), free On the various kinds of grain (chiefly wheat variet-
since 58 BCE and intended chiefly for the mass of poorer ies) and basic dietary issues, see Garnsey 1999: 12-21.
free male citizens, though even poor families would have For questions of shipping (ship size, routes, frequency)
300 book two

they are in addition subject to tribute of every kind,2424 and they hand over their prepared
tax levies2425 for the uses of the imperial power, considering none of the orders to be an
outrage as you do,2426 even though one legion remains with them.2427
Egypt 384 And why is it necessary to show you examples of the Romans’ power from afar,
when it is easy with neighboring Egypt?2428 385 Although extending all the way to Ethio-
pia2429 and Arabia Felix,2430 and being a harbor for the Indic [region],2431 and having

see Casson 1959: 233-39. On the grain supply see Rick- accept their harsher lot (but see previous note). Given
man 1980; Garnsey and Saller 1987: 83-103; Aldrete the larger context (2.375, 377, 378), a subsidiary point
and Mattingly 1999; Erdkamp 2005; Kessler and Temin may be that merely 1 legion is enough to pacify populous
2007. For Josephus’ remarks on the grain supply in tribes living in vast and difficult terrain; so feared are
Agrippa’s speech, see Paul 1990. the Romans.
2424 2428
African and Egyptian grain was itself a principal Agrippa has, in the narrative, just returned from
form of Roman taxation (in kind); Agrippa’s point is Alexandria (2.309, 335).
2429
that Africa faced many other taxes besides. On the vari- See the note to “Ethiopians” at 2.382. Like Strabo
ous possible kinds (e.g., head, salt, grain), see Lintott (8.7, 19, 49, 127), Josephus understands Ethiopia to be
1993: 70-96. General—not inviolable—Roman prin- separated from Egypt by the desert city of Syene—
ciples appear to have included: (a) the assessment of modern Aswan, at the S extremity of Upper Egypt (War
a fixed sum for a province, to be collected by the local 4.608).
2430
leadership however they wished to do so (e.g., by using See the note to “Arabs” at 1.6. According to
tax collectors or by paying the whole sum on credit and Strabo (citing Eratosthenes and Artemidorus), Arabia
waiting for their local taxes to come in), and (b) allowing Felix is bounded by the Arabian desert on the N, the Red
local tradition to determine varieties of taxation. Sea (“Arabian Gulf ”) on the W, the Persian Gulf on the
2425
See the notes at 2.4, 273. E, and the open sea on the S (16.3.1); hence, the areas
2426
This is the first hint that the Judeans have been of modern Yemen and Oman. But he also cites Eratos-
withholding their annual tribute payment from Rome; thenes to the effect that it extends 12,000 stadia (1,500
the suggestion is reinforced by another contrast at 2.385 miles—roughly the length of the Arabian peninsula N
and made explicit in the conclusion at 2.403-4. Agrippa’s to S) beyond the Nabatean and neighboring tribes, “to
rhetorical claim about Africa’s quiescence under heavy the south” (16.4.2). He describes the first inhabitants of
impositions may be ironic. At least it is at odds with the Arabia Felix, “after the Syrians and Judeans” as farmers;
region’s past: the presence of legio III Augusta (see next after them is a large area of sandy and barren soil, occu-
note) was necessary in part because Rome had faced a pied by tent-dwellers and camel-herds (evidently, the
serious revolt under Tacfarinas, in 17-24 CE (Tacitus, Hejaz). Then come “the extreme parts [of Arabia Felix]
Ann. 2.52; 3.20ff., 32, 73; 4.13.23-26), which required to the south,” across the Red Sea from Ethiopia, which
the assistance of IX Hispana, and the legions were again are well watered and fertile. And the remotest part of
active under S. Sulpicius Galba (future emperor) in this region is dominated by 4 prosperous monarchies: the
45-46 CE, against native rebels. Vespasian would move Minaeans, Sabaeans, Cattabanians, and Chatramotitae
the legionary headquarters closer to the Numidian heart- (16.4.2). Similarly Pliny: the desert of Palmyra “extends
land, from Ammaedara to Thevestis, possibly to improve all the way to the city of Petra and the region called
response times. Arabia Felix” (Nat. 5.87; cf. 5.65: beyond the Nile, Ara-
2427
Legio III Augusta was stationed in Africa through- bia extends to the Red Sea and Arabia Felix). On this
out this period (Parker 1992: 119, 140, 145, 182-84, understanding of Arabia Felix it is not difficult to accept
224-25). Garnsey and Saller (1987: 95-97) hypothesize Josephus’ claim that Egypt reaches (almost) that far,
a general principle that, since the billeting (including and this matches his claim at Ant. 1.239 that Abraham’s
grain supply) of a Roman legion was itself an enor- descendants colonized Troglodytis (in E Africa) and Ara-
mous burden for a province, “No major grain exporter bia Felix “as far as it touches the Red Sea.” In these
to Rome had to put up with a large garrison as well” contexts it seems impossible to identify Arabia Felix
(p. 96); the vast bulk of the legions were in the north- with the kingdom of Saba (Yemen, as Bowersock 1983:
ern provinces, which did not supply grain. Against this 2, 46-49), well over 1,000 miles away from Egypt.
2431
background, Josephus’ Agrippa may be emphasizing that Cf. Strabo (17.1.13), who mentions the greatly
Africa is imposed upon in both ways—and much more increased Indian traffic at Alexandria in recent times via
so than Judea, which has neither to supply significant the Red Sea. There was a marked shift in trade patterns
grain nor to support a legion. Even still, the Africans through the 1st century CE: whereas the kingdom of Saba
book two 301

7,500,000 people2432—aside from those inhabiting Alexandreia2433—as may be clearly

proven from the tax levy2434 on each head,2435 it does not scorn2436 the Roman imperium.2437
And yet what a great spur2438 for rebellion2439 it has in Alexandreia,2440 on account of both

(mod. Yemen) had traditionally moved Indian imports tax; that would explain his exclusion of the citizens of
overland through outposts of the S Nabatean kingdom Alexandria, who were exempt from this tax (Delia 1991:
and eventually to Egypt (Leuce Come to Petra to Phoe- 30-32). But see the note to “head” in this section.
2434
nician Rhinocolura, from where they were exported: See the notes to this term (εἰσφορά) at 2.4, 273.
Strabo 16.4.24), shippers increasingly by-passed the For the specific tax measures adopted by Roman rul-
Arabian peninsula by sailing directly up the Red Sea ers in Egypt, see A. H. M. Jones 1937: 296-350; Ros-
to Egypt, where their goods could be taken overland to tovtzeff 1957: 1.273-99; Delia 1991: 31-34. The Romans
Alexandria (cf. Bowersock 1983: 46-47, 73). In this way mainly preserved the Ptolemaic administrative arrange-
the harbors of Alexandria indeed became India’s port to ment, according to which all the land belonged to the
the Roman world. state (though it could be granted as tax-free gift), which
2432
Diodorus (1.31.6-8) says that ancient (Pharaonic) was leased and worked for government revenue. Augus-
Egypt had upwards of 18,000 cities and estimable vil- tus apparently continued a policy of Cleopatra VII in
lages, more than 30,000 from Ptolemy I (ca. 305 BCE) exempting Alexandrian citizens from the poll-tax (see
to the present. He then claims that the ancient population following note). Two of the Roman prefect’s half-dozen
was around 7,000,000. What comes next is unclear. All or so officials were ministers of revenue, and another
MSS except M say that the population has remained at managed imperial lands (Rostovtzeff 1957: 1.316).
2435
no less than 3,000,000 (τριακοσίων—300 [myriads]) This is the tributum capitis or poll tax, the personal
until the present—so, a decline of more than 50% from dues—exacted in addition to the block amount assessed
Pharaonic times, which is odd given the 75% increase for Egypt as a province (tributum soli)—known in Egypt
in cities and villages. Some scholars, taking note also from Ptolemaic times as the λαογραφία. Augustus had
of Josephus’ figure, have preferred M’s omission of this confirmed the exemption of Alexandrian citizens from
second number, such that the (“not less than”) 7,000,000 this tax (Delia 1991: 30), as Josephus also implies here,
remains valid until Diodorus’ time; others (see the LCL and the papyri (e.g., CPJ 150, possibly 153 III.53-59)
note ad loc.) supply τούτων (“not less than these”), for reveal an atmosphere of concern over efforts to fraudu-
the same result. Since, however, the “more difficult read- lently claim citizenship, often by association with the
ing” of 3,000,000 happens also to have the strongest MS ephebate (though Delia [1991: 73-75] argues that the two
support, we should probably support it over conjectural institutions were entirely distinct), in part so as to avoid
emendations that accommodate Josephus (for how else the tax. A papyrus from 5-4 BCE (CPJ 151) preserves
did the troublesome number arise?). It remains a prob- a desperate petition to the prefect from a Judean named
lem. One might also reason that Josephus would need to Helenos son of Tryphon for exemption from the tax,
give a roughly plausible figure to his educated Roman on the basis that his father was a citizen (and he had
audience (in keeping with the rest of the speech). completed at least part of the suitable education); but
Paul (1990: 81), favoring the 3 million figure in evidently his citizenship was not established and he was
Diodorus, speculates that Josephus may have borrowed subject to payment.
(and raised) the figure of 7 million from Hecataeus of If Josephus had seen the actual Egyptian poll-tax
Abdera—one of his known sources (Apion 1.183-204) revenue figures, it would presumably have served his
and possibly Diodorus’ source for ancient Egypt—and purpose to mention them, here or especially at 2.386,
mischievously attributed it to poll-tax records of his own to show their overwhelming size in contrast to Judean
day. If Josephus also used Diodorus in War , however, as exactions.
2436
some passages suggest (see Index), that solution would See the note to this verb at 2.361.
2437
be less plausible. See the note to this phrase at 1.3. This is its 3rd and
2433
See the note to the city at 2.309. In a study marked final occurrence in Agrippa’s speech (cf. 2.357, 362).
2438
by exemplary caution, Delia (1988) estimates the city’s On the equestrian imagery, see the note to “bri-
population as 5-600,000. Several decades earlier Diodo- dle” at 2.387.
2439
rus (17.52.6) mentions more than 300,000 “free resi- See note at 2.39.
2440
dents,” which would support such an estimate. Josephus In spite of the implication in what follows that
implies that he has access to the poll-tax returns, either Alexandria has happily accepted its lot under Roman
an account of the income itself (divided to arrive at a rule, Dio’s roughly contemporary speech to the Alexan-
population number) or the registration records for the drians gives the clear impression of a people notorious
302 book two

mass of men and wealth,2441 and given its size;2442 386 yet although its length is a good
thirty stadia and its breadth not less than ten,2443 it hands over2444 to the Romans more in
one month than the yearly tax from you2445—and, besides the money,2446 grain for Rome
for four months.2447 And it is walled off on every side:2448 by impassable deserts,2449 har-

for trouble, though normally frivolous in origin, who measures (modii)—133,000 tonnes of grain to Rome
constantly threaten to attract the attention of Roman sol- annually (using the weight-to-volume ratios in Garnsey
diers (Or. 32.1, 4, 7, 17-18). and Saller 1987: 84-85). Although Oates (1934) com-
2441
On Egypt’s economic role in the empire, see bines both figures to reach a total volume of grain (60
Frank 1927: 379-408. million measures), and thence a new population total for
2442
See the note to “Alexandreia” in this section: the Rome of 1.25 million, contemporary scholarship inclines
city’s population was greater than half a million and all to reject both the Epitome’s figure (suggesting perhaps
the literary sources discuss its enviable prosperity (Strabo half of that as accurate) and Josephus’ implication that
17.1.5-7; Philo, Flac. 163; Legat. 150, 338; Pliny, Nat. Egypt and Africa together supplied Rome’s total grain
5.62; Josephus, War 6.415; Dio, Or. 32.36). imports. See Garnsey and Saller 1987: 85; Paul 1990.
2443 2448
Roughly 6 km (3.73 miles) by 2 km (1.24 miles). Greek τετείχισται δὲ πάντοθεν; cf. 2.371 (of the
Josephus’ figures are close to Strabo’s (17.1.8): the latter Gauls) and 2.378 (of the Britons). Josephus’ control of
compares the shape to a military cloak, giving the same Agrippa’s speech is indicated again by the close verbal
length as Josephus but the width as 8 or 9 stadia, with parallel at 4.607-10 (τετείχισται µὲν οὕτως ἡ Αἴγυπτος
one side truncated by the two bodies of water; cf. the πάντοθεν), where he is speaking in the narrator’s voice
map in LCL Strabo, vol. 8. By way of comparison, Rome about Vespasian’s concern, in challenging Vitellius, to
was about 4.5 km deep (N-S) and 4 km at the longest seize Egypt. But there Josephus is speaking of Egypt,
(E-W) point within its walls, though the walls created a as was A. H. M. Jones when he wrote in apparent inde-
completely irregular shape. Agrippa’s point here is that pendence (1937: 296): “Egypt is very inaccessible. On
Alexandria was well suited, if any city was, for indepen- the east, west, and south it is surrounded by deserts . . . ;
dence from Rome. Indeed it was the 2nd-largest in the invasion by land is therefore very difficult . . . .Invasion
empire, with some 5-600,000 inhabitants (Delia 1988: by sea is almost as difficult; for the coast of the Delta is
esp. 287-88). fringed by lagoons and marshes, and possesses no good
2444
Although Agrippa is still speaking of Alexandria, natural harbours.” Although Josephus’ Agrippa must here
which was clearly distinguished from Egypt as a whole, be speaking of Alexandria, given the syntax, this may be
he seems now to be speaking about Egypt when he men- a slip or a case of metonymy.
tions taxes, grain, and the naturally “walled” borders. Alexandria sat on a strip of land nearly 60 km long
2445
Josephus’ vagueness about the provincial tax and between 2 and 5 km wide, W of the vast Nile
(tributum soli) may result from dependence on Strabo, river delta. Before it to the N lay the Mediterranean
who is also vague about Egypt’s revenue—noting that in Sea, behind it the large Lake Mareotis. If the issue is
Cicero’s time (the 50s BCE) the amount exacted from defense against Roman attack, however (as it is here),
his subjects by King (Ptolemy XII) Auletes was the enor- all this appears largely irrelevant because of Alexandria’s
mous sum of 12,500 talents annually (17.1.13), but that famous man-made harbors, in constant use for grain and
Egypt’s revenues must be much more than this at Strabo’s military purposes (though see the note to “seas” follow-
time of writing—under Tiberius (half a century before ing). In the Hellenistic period, diplomatic travel between
Josephus). Alexandria and Greece was frequent; the Ptolemies had
2446
Josephus’ Agrippa, though without precise lan- regularly led their armies NE into Judea during the 3rd
guage, paints a picture of much greater oppression in cent. BCE; the Seleucid Antiochus IV (168 BCE) had
Egypt than in Judea: individual poll tax plus provincial seemed well positioned to invade Egypt before being
tax in money plus the enormous grain contribution. He prevented by C. Popilius Laenas (Polybius 29.27.1-6);
does not dwell on the obvious fact that Egypt also had to and the Romans apparently had little trouble entering
host two legions (cf. 2.383 for Africa). Judea contributes and leaving Alexandria by sea. Agrippa himself has just
only the standard taxes. returned, with apparent ease, from a social trip to Alex-
2447
See the notes to “Rome” and “eight months” at andria (2.309, 338). The land march was evidently dif-
2.383. In Josephus’ simplified scheme, this 4-month sup- ficult for a large army, but by no means impossible: cf.
ply from Egypt should complement the 8-month supply Titus’ route to Judea (4.658-62).
2449
from North Africa. According to the Epitome de Cae- Egypt, essentially the country of the Nile River,
saribus (1.6), based on the 4th-cent. CE work of Aurelius valley, and delta, is indeed surrounded by deserts: the
Victor, under Augustus Egypt contributed 20,000,000 Arabian (E), Nubian (S), and Libyan (W). At 4.608 Jose-
book two 303

borless seas,2450 rivers, or marshes.2451 387 But none of these has been found stronger than
Romans’ fortune,2452 and two legions2453 stationed2454 in the city bridle2455 deeper Egypt2456
together with the nobility of the Macedonians.2457

phus will specify the dry deserts of Libya to the W and the major rivers at optimal points, S of the marshiest
the Syene (by Aswan) to the S. Although these deserts, land along the N coast. This is apparently the route that
along with the Sahara further E and SW, and the Sinai King Agrippa himself had recently taken (2.309, 338).
desert further E, were largely impassable, they did not Nevertheless, Strabo (17.1.21) does observe that this
inhibit Roman approaches via the Mediterranean or from route is difficult, especially for armies.
2452
Judaea. See the note at 2.373.
2450 2453
At 4.607 Josephus will repeat the same phrase So also Tacitus, Ann. 4.5 (for the year 23 CE):
(θάλασσα ἀλίµενος, here plural) in arguing for Egypt’s the Alexandrian legions at the time of Agrippa’s speech
security, should Vespasian seize it against Vitellius. The were still, as earlier, III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotari-
scope of Josephus’ rhetoric is clear from the fact that at ana (Parker 1992: 119, 140, 145); they would remain
Apion 2.33 he will use the phrase yet again of Apion’s stationed there until Trajan’s reign.
2454
description of the Judeans’ residence in Alexandria—only The verb ἐγκάθηµαι appears in Josephus only
to reject it as an absurd slur on this great city. Alexandria, here and at War 5.8.
2455
a major trade center, had two large and famous harbors, Since the verb χαλινόω occurs only here in Jose-
marked by the outer island of Pharos with its world- phus, and is extremely rare in metaphorical use (not of
famous lighthouse tower, which were also the means of actually bridling horses) before his time, we must assume
Roman access to the city (for Caesar, Antony, and Octa- that he uses it deliberately. Since Josephus’ Agrippa also
vian). Ships routinely traveled between Alexandria and uses the image of the spur in this section (2.385), we
Rome carrying grain, as the speaker has just noted. So might suppose that he is alluding to the Macedonians’
Strabo, in calling Alexandria “the greatest emporium in reputation for horsemanship: the “companions” of the
the inhabited earth,” comments on its uniquely favorable king were initially that élite equestrian corps. A parallel
situation for commerce by sea, precisely “on account literary technique, then, would be his use of proskynesis
of the good harbors” (17.1.13). Or Dio (Or. 32.36): when speaking of Alexander (see note to “making obei-
“you control the entire sea by virtue of the excellence sance” at 2.360): the very qualities of domination for
of your harbors, the size of your fleet . . . .” Josephus which these parties were once famous have now been
will claim that, although the harbors themselves are fine, turned against them by the Romans.
2456
the approaches are treacherous, and the purpose of the This language (βαθεῖαν Αἴγυπτον) for distin-
Pharos tower, visible some 60 km (37.5 miles) offshore, guishing Lower, Middle, and Upper Egypt from the
is to warn sailors to stay away—to anchor beyond the Macedonian foundation of Alexandria (next note) seems
shoals (War 4.613). By contrast Strabo, while conceding unattested before Josephus, though he will use it again
that the harbor entrances require caution, claims more at Apion 2.41. This agreement incidentally illustrates the
plausibly that the Pharos tower serves to signal the loca- pervasiveness of Josephus’ hand in Agrippa’s speech.
2457
tion of Alexandria’s harbors along the otherwise harbor- Josephus’ Agrippa reflects here the well known
less and dangerous coast of N Egypt (17.1.6). NB: Philo distinction between Egypt and Alexandria, the latter
(Flac. 109-110) describes a ship’s anchoring outside the founded by Alexander and led thereafter by a Mace-
harbor as part of a deception, by the guard sent from donian élite that sharply distinguished itself from oth-
Rome to arrest Flaccus, who would enter the harbor ers, especially the Egyptians. Josephus will deploy this
under cover of darkness. The implication is that ships distinction rhetorically against Apion, a born Egyptian
would normally enter the harbor (and if entry could be who acquired citizenship (Apion 2.41). Alexandrian citi-
achieved in the dark, it cannot have been prohibitively zens enjoyed considerable benefits, especially exemption
difficult). from the head tax and from compulsory public service
2451
Cf. 4.608: “the unnavigable cataracts of the river elsewhere. The prestige of citizenship was carefully
[Nile].” The massive Nile delta to the E was filled with guarded, however: naturalization was a relatively rare
rivers and marshes, but these posed no problem of access and complicated process; see Delia 1991: 7-47. These
to Alexandria from the Mediterranean; nor were they a social tensions had caused the Ptolemaic regime serious
serious impediment for travel from Judea, via the straight trouble from about 246 BCE onward, famously in the
E-W road through Rhinoculura (El Arish, S of Raphia), 20-year-long revolt in Upper and Middle Egypt (207/6-
Pelusium, Tanis, Thmus, Busiris, and Sais, which bridged 186 BCE).
304 book two

Lack of mortal 3882458 Which allies, then, will you take in? From the uninhabited [region]? Cer-
allies
tainly all those in the inhabited earth2459 are Romans, unless someone extends his hopes
beyond the Euphrates and supposes that his compatriots from Adiabene2460 are joining
the defense.2461 389 But they will not embroil themselves in so serious a war2462 for an
irrational cause;2463 nor would the Parthian2464 grant permission to any who had decided
so badly, for he shows concern for the armistice2465 with the Romans,2466 and he will re-

2458
Josephus’ Agrippa turns from the long list of and they will be among the last holdouts when the city
proofs by example (the confirmatio), of the necessity is taken. Titus will mercifully take them (including sons
of accommodation with Rome, to an increasingly emo- and brothers of Izates) to Rome as hostages for Adi-
tional appeal, challenging his audience with the con- abene’s quiescence in the future (6.356-57). If Josephus’
sequences of what he has said (2.388-401). Runnalls Roman audience knew of such high-profile hostages
(1997: 749-50) observes that Josephus continues the mix from the Parthian empire now living in Rome, which
of periodic and paratactic styles from the proof. Whether seems antecedently likely, Agrippa’s irony would be both
the peroratio begins here, or only at 2.400, is not clear; literary and extra-textual. Agrippa appears, again, as the
see Excursus. statesman in crisis bending every effort, using deception
2459
See the note to “world” at 2.360. Here I spell out or disingenuousness as necessary, to stifle dangerous
“inhabited [world]” to capture the play against “unin- rebellious impulses among his people (Plutarch, Mor.
habited.” [Praec.] 818e-f). See Excursus.
2460 2463
Key members of the Adiabenian royal family had On rationality as the statesman’s criterion, see the
adopted Judean law in the 30s and 40s: the current king note to “irrational hope” at 2.346.
2464
Monobazus’ predecessor Izates and the latter’s mother The king of Parthia: Vologeses (ruled ca. 51-78
Helena (Ant. 20.17-96). This was no merely “religious” CE).
2465
change: they identified so closely with Jerusalem that Or “truce” (ἐκεχειρία). This term was used for,
Queen Helena moved there and provided crucial assis- among other things, the truce that accompanied such
tance during the famine of the 40s (20.49-53). The fam- pan-Hellenic festivals as the Olympic Games (Aristotle,
ily’s monuments, palaces, and tombs remained prominent Frag. var. 8.44.533; Demetrius, fr. 89; Polybius 12.26.2;
features of the city (War 5.147, 523). Five young sons of Plutarch, Lyc. 1.1; 23.2; Pausanias 5.4.5, 20.1; Bederman
Izates came to be educated in Jerusalem in the 40s (Ant. 2001: 252-53). See further 2.456 below, for a deft, partly
20.71), when Josephus was also a teenager; it is anteced- metaphorical application.
2466
ently probable that, given the small circle of the city’s The agreement in question was fresh at the time
élite, he knew them personally. For the involvement of of Agrippa’s speech. Because of events in the long-
Adiabenian royalty (in Jerusalem) in the war, Agrippa’s contested Armenia (invaded by an Iberian usurper in
claim notwithstanding, see the note to “war” at 2.389. 52 CE, taken by Tiridates, brother of the Parthian king
2461
The present tense suggests that those itching Vologeses, in 54), Nero planned a massive invasion of
to rebel are hoping that an Adiabenian contingency is Parthia. After carefully preparing his legions, in 58-59
already on its way. Although προσαµύνω occurs 7 times CE Corbulo advanced into Armenia and installed Nero’s
in War 2-6 (not elsewhere in Josephus), it is a Homeric appointee Tigranes V. Vologeses planned a campaign
verb (Il. 2.238; 5.139; 16.509) otherwise rarely attested to reinstall his brother, but at the same time sent an
before Josephus (Aristotle, Frag. var. [Rose] 8.47.615; embassy to seek Roman agreement that Armenia should
Aristonicus [on Homer], Sign. Il., schol. 4.h137-41; Ona- remain under Parthian control. Although the Romans
sander 42.12-13). Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch uses balked, their recent lack of success E of the Euphrates
it 12 times and Cassius Dio 5; so it is another example motivated them to compromise: the Parthian appointee
of Josephus’ riding the wave of fashionable diction in could govern Armenia, but only after receiving his dia-
War . dem in Rome. That agreement was made in 63 CE, but
2462
Agrippa’s rhetorical certainty is about to be point- only sealed in 66 when Tiridates finally reached Rome
edly undermined, providing another example of the after a grand overland tour and received the diadem from
speech’s ironic character. In the first major victory of Nero. It seems that this hard-won agreement, elaborately
the Judean rebels—their successful charge against Ces- celebrated in Rome, was indeed stable: we hear almost
tius’ legion before his attack on Jerusalem—two of the nothing of Roman-Parthian conflicts again until Tra-
prominent fighters are identified as relatives of the Adi- jan, and much about Parthian attempts at consolidating
abenian King Monobazus (2.520). Indeed, Adiabenians entente during the 70s. See Introduction and Debevoise
will continue to turn up in War’s narrative (4.567; 5.474), 1938: 179-200; Dio 63.1.2-6.1.
book two 305

gard it as violating2467 that treaty if one of those under him moves against the Romans.
390 Finally, then, one must resort2468 to the alliance of God.2469 But this too has been Lack of divine
alliance
formed up2470 on the side of the Romans2471—for without God2472 it is impossible to put
together such a formidable empire.2473
391 And consider how the purity of your cultic practice2474 [will be] hard to manage,2475 Inevitable
violations of law
in war

2467
One third of the 12 occurrences of παραβαίνω in to make them interchangeable, but this is unlikely. Both
War come in this part of Agrippa’s speech (also 2.391, are inscrutable to mortals and both bring about results
393, 394), driving home that the imminent revolt will that cannot be achieved by human will and effort; so
require violations of all kinds of laws. their effects may look the same. But fortune is fi ckle
2468
This artful adjective (καταφευκτέον) is rare: only and changeable, and one can only speak “as if ” it had
here in Josephus, it is attested before him only in Anaxi- designs or purposes (Polybius 11.5.8; 15.6.8; 23.10.2,
menes (7.14), after him only in Lucian (Rev. pisc. 3) 16; 29.19.2), whereas God is the rational spirit and mind
before 3 attestations in Byzantine texts. behind the operations of the universe. Indeed, God will
2469
This distinctive phrase (θεοῦ συµµαχία) illus- rescue the virtuous from fortune’s turns (Ant. 18.267;
trates Josephus’ authorial hand. He uses it elsewhere 19.16, 233, 294). Although one might feel compelled
at 7.319 (editorially, speaking of Roman enjoyment of by logic to choose between a theist metaphysics and one
this at Masada) and Ant. 3.45; 8.283; 9.15; 10.24 (all based on chance or fortune, Josephus does not usually
concerning the army of Moses, Israel, or Judah enjoy- make that choice explicit (except tellingly at War 3.391,
ing divine alliance). God as ally (σύµµαχος) is even asking whether it was fortune or God’s providence that
more common: 4.366; Ant. 2.241; 4.177; 5.98; 9.16. explained his survival at Iotapata). It does not seem to
Before Josephus the συµµαχία phrase is attested only be mere synonymous parallelism, therefore, when he
in Philo, in similar biblical contexts (Abr. 95; Migr. remarks that “fortune has passed over to the Romans
56; Virt. 46)—showing again the remarkable similarity from all sides, and God, as he brings the rule around
between their lexicons even where there is no question nation by nation, is now over Italy” (5.367). At 6.399
of Philonic sources—although the notion of the Gods as he will speak of the rebels’ final descent and surrender
allies has occasional older precedents (Euripides, Troi. from the strong Herodian towers as unusually good mate-
469; Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.10; Ages. 1.13; Aristotle, Pol. rial for studying “the power of God exercised against
1315a; Menander, Sent. 1.126; 2 Macc. 11.13; Diodorus the impious as well as (τε . . . καί) the fortune of the
16.91.4; 28.3.1; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.6.3). Romans.”
2470 2473
Josephus’ Agrippa continues with military meta- Or “dominance, command, influence.” Elsewhere
phors following from “alliance”: here τέτακται. in this translation, Greek ἡγεµονία is normally rendered
2471
That Rome enjoys divine support against the by Latin imperium—a term difficult to translate, but
Judean insurgents—not, however, carte blanche or in which would have been recognized by Josephus’ Roman
the mistreatments described throughout book 2—is a audience by this standard Greek counterpart. Here, how-
standard position of both narrator and speakers in War ever, the Greek word has its generic sense of dominance,
(3.293, 351; 4.366, 370; 5.19, 39, 278, 343, 367-68, 378, which other nations have also exercised, even though
396; 6.38, 101, 110, 371, 399, 433; 7.34, 319); see also Roman success is in view.
2474
the following note. Or “worship.” This (τὸ τῆς θρησκείας ἄκρατον)
2472
See the note to this distinctive phrase at 2.135. Cf. is an unambiguously positive formulation of what had
6.409-13, where Titus recognizes that God’s assistance struck Pilate, Josephus claims, as purity of superstition
was indispensable in the Roman victory, especially in (τὸ τῆς δεισιδαιµονίας ἄκρατον; see note at 2.174).
2475
view of the Herodian defenses and towers, since human This elegant adjective (δυσδιοίκητος) appears
hands could never have achieved it (also 6.399, 401). The only here in Josephus; it is unattested in literature before
conception that God alone makes nations rise and fall his time and afterwards turns up chiefly in medical writ-
is deeply ingrained in Judean history, most fully articu- ers of the 2nd century and later (Soranus, Gyn. 2.20.1,
lated in the book of Daniel (cf. Mason 1994). Josephus 24.2, 25.1, 46.4; Oribasius, Coll. med. 2.58.7, 32, 37,
frequently brings this conception into uneasy connection 58.28). Since it often has the sense of “indigestable”
with the Greek concept of fortune as the explanation of (i.e., managing the intake of food), Josephus may intend
Rome’s rise, as he does in Agrippa’s speech (see note at a double meaning, with one eye on the violation of
2.373). Because he sometimes mentions God and for- dietary laws in times of war.
tune together (also 5.367) it may seem that he intends
306 book two

even if you were to make war on easy victims;2476 and how, as you are compelled to vio-
late2477 those things for the sake of which you more fervently put your hope in God as an
ally, you will actually turn him away.2478 392 Certainly, by observing the customs of the
seventh [days]2479 and initiating no activities whatsoever,2480 you will easily be conquered,
just as your ancestors were by Pompey,2481 who made these days, on which those who were
under siege were inactive,2482 especially active for the siege.2483 393 If you are violating2484
the ancestral law in the [context of] war, on the other hand, I do not know on what basis
you will press the contest further, when your one keen desire is not to relinquish any of
the ancestral [laws]. 394 How will you call upon the Deity for defense when you have
wilfully violated2485 your attentiveness2486 toward him?2487
All those who take war upon themselves2488 have come to trust in either divine or hu-
man help.2489 But whenever probability cuts it off on both [sides], those who make war are
choosing evident capture.2490 395 What in fact prevents you from executing your children

2476
MSS PA use the optative verb, which seems cor- in Jerusalem (63 BCE), Pompey takes advantage of their
rect in view of the apparently corrupted alternatives. sabbath rest to build up the earthworks on the N side
Josephus here shifts from his main argument, based upon of the temple without interference. Josephus insists that
an amply illustrated and realistic appraisal of Rome’s Pompey did not engage in combat on that day, perhaps
power, to the point that even if Rome were not such a in the knowledge that (he explains) the Judeans would
power—the optative stressing the distance from real- indeed fight in direct self-defense, but would not other-
ity of this supposition—the Judeans could not properly wise work (so 1 Macc 2:38-41). At War 1.60 Josephus
maintain cultic practice while at war. tells of John Hyrcanus’ raising of a siege against his bad
2477
See the note at 2.389. son-in-law Ptolemy, at Dagon above Jericho, in the sab-
2478
Agrippa economically asserts a paradox, which he batical year—an entire year of inactivity for Judeans, he
will illustrate below: the Judeans are contemplating war explains, just like the 7th day of each week.
for the sake of their ancestral laws, and so expect God as 2484
See the note at 2.389—the 3rd of 4 occurrences of
ally; but war (against anyone) will require compromises this verb within a short space.
in observing the laws, which will offend the Deity and 2485
The f inal and most potent deployment of
discount him as ally. παραβαίνω in this small section of the speech; see the
2479
See the note to “seventh” at 2.289. That Jose- note at 2.389.
phus rarely uses “sabbath” on its own in War (2.634), 2486
See the note at 2.2.
preferring “seventh” [day], seems a concession to his 2487
That is: they fight in order to be free to observe
Roman audience and Atticizing style. Soon after this
the laws, but will only be able to fight by breaking the
speech (2.456) the militants will indeed violate the sab-
laws. The examples of possible law-breaking here are
bath, he claims, in the most egregious way: combining
restrained, for the narrative has not yet shown the forma-
oath-breaking, wanton bloodshed, and sacrilege. The
tion of a movement for war, with various rebel factions
respectable element of the population then understands
engaging in atrocities against each other. Still, Agrippa
immediately that catastrophe awaits. Sabbath violation
may be implied already at 2.424; see further 2.517-18. here anticipates the speech of Josephus himself, after the
2480
It reinforces Josephus’ awareness of his audience “tyrants” have demonstrated their behavior. At 5.399-403
that he routinely adds to any mention of the seventh day he will excoriate their actions—thefts, treacheries, adul-
a gloss about the Judeans’ abstention from work then: teries, plunder, and murder, polluting the very temple
1.146; 2.456, 517. precincts—and consequently ridicule their expectation
2481
See the note to “Pompey” at 1.19. This anticipates of divine help (or “alliance”).
2488
the speech of Josephus’ character at 5.395-97. The doubly prefixed verb ἐπαναιρέοµαι occurs
2482
In Apion 1.209-12 Josephus will reject the criti- only here in War .
2489
cism of the Judeans on precisely this score: that they Agrippa here echoes the fateful Melian dialogue
have lost military conflicts because of sabbath supersti- in Thucydides (5.104-105): the Melians looked in futil-
tion. There Josephus takes it as a mark of virtue that a ity to improbable human aid (from the Spartans), divine
nation should care more about its laws than about pre- intervention (on the basis of their just cause), or for-
serving life. tune.
2490
2483
Josephus has recounted this episode at 1.145-46 See the notes to this key term, which may have
(cf. Ant. 14.63). While besieging the recalcitrant party been the work’s original title, at 1.10; 2.276.
book two 307

and women2491 with your own hands,2492 and from incinerating2493 this most exception-
ally beautiful homeland?2494 For in behaving madly in this way,2495 at least you will spare
yourselves the scandal of defeat.2496
396 Friends, as long as the boat is still at the dock, it is noble—noble!2497—to con- Reconsider
sider beforehand2498 the approaching winter storm2499 and not to be led back2500 into the before disaster
middle of squalls, to perish:2501 whereas those who fall into terrible [circumstances] from
unseen [causes] are at least to be pitied,2502 the one who has rushed into foreseen destruc-
tion attracts only scandal.2503 397 But in case perhaps2504 anyone supposes that you will

2491
See the note to the tragic invocation of “women Rome’s representatives. Agrippa takes the high ground by
and children,” common in Josephus and especially prom- insisting that his proposed course is not cowardly—any
inent in the Masada story (see next note), at 2.192. more than keeping one’s boat away from life-threatening
2492
War ’s first major deliberative speech thus antici- squalls would be. With this analogy he continues to fuse
pates the mass suicide at Masada (7.389-401) as the the historically conflicting categories of moral right and
inevitable outcome of war against Rome—making the expediency. (Is it really noble, or only expedient, not to
point that the rebels might as well have killed themselves head into sea storms? Would it not be noble to do so,
at the outset. The anticipatory note highlights the compo- deliberately risking one’s life, if the moral stakes were
sitional unity of War (see Introduction) and the presence high enough?)
2498
throughout of Josephus’ hand. This exhortation (like the See the note to “first considered” at 2.25. This is
Masada story) also echoes earlier ancient contexts in the 3rd occurrence of a verb that appears only in War 2.
2499
which mass murder-suicide was a natural prospect in the This extended metaphor of the ship, harbor, storm,
face of overwhelming military opposition; cf. the siege hurricane, and (here implied) helmsman is not an ad hoc
of Abydus in Polybius (16.30-34) and Cohen 1982b for creation, but shows Josephus’ participation in long-estab-
a survey of cases. lished Greco-Roman dialogue about governing states. In
2493
See the note at 2.58. his own character’s speech at 3.368-69, he will use the
2494
Agrippa’s emphasis on the imminent reversal same set of images (and vocabulary) to compare mass
of Jerusalem’s status, from most beautiful and blessed suicide in the face of imminent trouble to the cowardly
to most desolate, reprises a key theme of the prologue helmsman who, for fear of a storm, pre-emptively sinks
(1.11). One can make the adjective καλλής emphatic his ship before the hurricane arrives. At 2.556 he will
either by the addition of a prefix (such as περί here) claim that many distinguished Judeans, following the
or by using the superlative form. It was rare for writ- Cestian calamity, “swam away from the city as though
ers before Josephus to use both (περικαλλέστατος), the from a sinking ship”—abandoning their responsibilities.
form he prefers in 4 of his 7 uses of the compound (also The image of the ship of state was famously conjured
1.402, 412; Ant. 15.363). Before him, Philo uses the by Plato’s Socrates (Resp. 488c-e) to illustrate the futil-
superlative compound 11 times, though before Philo it ity of allowing anyone but a skilled helmsman (i.e., a
seems attested only once (Aristotle, Mund. 397a). philosopher-king) to steer it (= the polis). Cf. Polybius
2495
The two remaining occurrences of this verb 6.44.4, 6. This imagery is featured by Josephus’ contem-
(µαίνοµαι) in War are also in programmatic speeches porary, Plutarch, both in his essay of Political Advice
concerning potential suicide in the face of war: Jose- (Mor. 801c, 803a, 807b, 812c) and in his biographies
phus denouncing the prospect at 3.375, Eleazar son of of political figures, especially of the expert “helmsman”
Ya‘ir commending it (ironically recognizing it as the Philopoemen (Phil. 17.3-4). See the note to “city” at
consequence of madness on his part) at 7.338. Agrippa’s 2.556.
2500
evocation of crazed behavior, madness, or folly, contin- This passive verb highlights the problem of trust-
ues Josephus’ development of the Thucydidean-Polybian worthy leadership, appropriately for a statesman such as
diagnosis of irrational political behavior. (Josephus’) Agrippa.
2496 2501
Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will give precisely this ratio- So MSS PA (ἀπολουµένους), though MSS
nale at 7.333-35. MV1RC read “from a harbor” (ἀπὸ λιµένος).
2497 2502
This emphasis (repeating καλός), also in view of See the note at 2.337.
2503
the rest of Agrippa’s speech, suggests that those calling See the note at 2.29.
2504
for rebellion were appealing to the predictable criteria Or “But and if.” Although this phrase (πλὴν εἰ
of valor and manly courage, and deriding those who µή) has reasonable attestation (8 times in Aristotle;
failed to stand up to the continuing humiliations dealt by Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 1.10.6; Dionysius, Ant. rom.
308 book two

be making war according to articles of agreement,2505 and that the Romans will show
restraint2506 after taking control of you, and will not, as an example to the other nations,
both incinerate2507 the holy city and do away with your entire people:2508 well, you will
find no place of refuge, if you have survived, with everyone having—or afraid to have—
Romans as masters.2509
398 And the danger is not only for those who are here, but also for those residing
in the other cities; for there is no population across the world2510 that does not have a
share of ours.2511 399 Upon your going to war, their foes will massacre all of them,2512
and because of the bad counsel of a few men2513 every city2514 will be filled with Judean
slaughter.2515 To be sure, pardon will come to those who have done this;2516 but if it should

2512
4.74.1; Strabo, Geog. 1.2.22; Philo, Ebr. 135; Flac. 50; Shortly after Agrippa’s speech, this prediction
[Demetrius], Eloc. 83; Plutarch, Sol. 23.2; Comp. Alc. will be validated in the narrative. The slaughter of more
Cor. 1.2; Marc. 3.4; Mor. 243d, 265e; Dio Chrysostom, than 20,000 Judeans in Caesarea (2.457) brings Judean
Or. 31.94; 32.88; 36.22; 71.2), Josephus is a heavy user, retaliations against numerous villages and cities through-
with 9 occurrences (3 in War, 6 in Antiquities). Galen out Syria and the Decapolis (Caesarea, Philadelphia,
has it dozens of times, though apparently some Atticiz- Heshbon, Gerasa, Pella, Scythopolis, Hippos, Gaulani-
ing police (as it were) considered it a solecism. Lucian tis, Tyrian Kedasa, Ptolemais, Gaba, Sebaste, Ashkelon,
also uses the phrase (Vit. auct. 7; Merc. cond. 9, 23; Anthedon, Gaza): “the slaughter of the men who were
Prom. verb. 1), but his Atticizing purist mocks the usage captured was innumerable” (2.458-60). This in turn pro-
as redundant (Sol. 7). vokes massacres of Judeans throughout Syria (2.461-78)
2505
Of the 39 occurrences of συνθήκη in Josephus, and riots in Alexandria; massive Judean casualties result
mostly plural as here, a disproportionate 5 are concen- (2.487-98). Later we learn that the Damascenes had
trated in War 2.397-2.640 (also 2.452, 453, 602, 640). sequestered their Judean population of 10,500 in the
The plural is often used as a singular (“treaty, pact”), gymnasium, out of suspicion. On hearing of Cestius
though I translate it where possible with an English plu- Gallus’ defeat, they massacre them (2.559-61).
2513
ral. This phrase completes an inclusio with Agrippa’s
2506
Of 4 occurrences of µετριάζω in Josephus, 2 are opening remarks (2.346): “that the good might not share
in Agrippa’s speech (also 2.349); both deny the attribute the harvest of a few people’s bad counsel” (as also Run-
of restraint to the Romans—as procurators or victors. nalls 1997: 750). On the distinctive noun κακοβουλία,
2507
See the note at 2.58. see the note to “bad counsel” at 2.210.
2508 2514
See the note to “people” at 2.366. But see the note to “all of them” in this sentence.
2509
The universality of Roman rule over the inhabited Josephus provides no evidence that Judean communities
earth has been driven home at 2.380, 388, 390. more remote than Syria and Alexandria (e.g., in Asia
2510
See the note this word at 2.360. Minor, Greece, Italy, or N Africa) suffered reprisals,
2511
Lit. “our share” (ὁ [µὴ] µοῖραν ἡµετέραν ἔχων): though it is possible that this occurred; it is unlikely
an understandable exaggeration, and probably not far off that the large Parthian diaspora suffered thus.
2515
in relation to the cities of the E and N Mediterranean The evocative phrase Ἰουδαϊκός φόνος appears
(leaving aside northern Europe, much of the W Medi- only here in Josephus (and is unattested elsewhere);
terranean, Africa, and regions E of the Parthian world). it is similar in form, however, to the equally heinous
Judean communities are indeed well attested through- συγγενικός φόνος at Scythopolis (2.471), in the related
out the eastern Mediterranean and in Parthian territories context of reprisals. At 3.17 Josephus will present τῶν
(Neusner 1969; Barclay 1996; Gruen 2002). Cf. 7.43: Ἰουδαίων φόνος as an early consequence of Judean-
“The Judean race, densely dispersed among the natives Roman conflict in Judea.
2516
throughout the entire world (οἰκουµένη). . . .” I.e., those who kill Judeans will not fear Roman
At Apion 2.280-86 Josephus will make a different punishment, given Roman hatred of the rebel nation.
but related claim: the laws and customs of the Judeans Cf. 2.464, where Syrian citizens plunder with impunity
are emulated (by non-Judeans) everywhere. That parallel the homes of Judeans who have been killed. Josephus
is relevant because in the sequel (2.463, 560; cf. 7.45) provides a partial counter-example in 7.41-62, 100-115:
Josephus will report that the cities of Syria, after killing Titus refuses to grant the Antiochenes’ request to expel
their Judean populations, were still apprehensive about their large Judean community, a request they assumed he
the large number of Judaizers in each city. would grant in view of the recent hostilities in Jerusalem.
book two 309

not be done,2517 ponder how impious [it would be] to turn weapons2518 against those who
are so humane.2519 400 So let compassion reach into2520 you, if not for the children and
women,2521 at least for this mother-city2522 and the sacred precincts.2523 Spare the temple and
keep for yourselves the shrine2524 along with the holy [things].2525 For the Romans will no
longer hold back after taking control over these, when they have been shown ingratitude
after sparing them before.2526
401 For my part, I call to witness2527 your holy [places], the sacred messengers of Agrippa’s final
God,2528 and our common homeland, that I betrayed2529 nothing of what conduces to your appeal

But that account also begins with the observation that well to the N of Judea—describes the many Judeans
Vespasian’s arrival in Syria to prosecute the Judean war elsewhere whose fate is tied to events in Jerusalem.
had brought the hatred of Judeans to a head (7.46-47); Most (17) of War’s occurrences come in bk. 4, where
combined with suspicions about their plans to harm the Jerusalem is the contested property (“mother”) of very
locals, this resulted in many Judean deaths—with appar- different offspring: chief priests, zealots, and Idumeans.
ent impunity (7.48-53). Most other occurrences are here in the latter half of bk.
2517
I.e., if some cities do not turn against their Judean 2 (also 2.421, 517, 554, 626).
2523
populations. At 2.479-80, Josephus will single out Anti- Or “the sacred walls” (τῶν ἱερῶν περιβόλων).
och (but 7.43-53), Sidon, and Syrian Apamea, with Greek περίβολος (“going around”) can mean either a
Gerasa in the Decapolis, as the only cities of the region protective wall or the area thus protected. Josephus uses
that did not harm their Judean inhabitants. the word often (about 35 times) in War , in both senses.
2518
Lit. “activate, mobilize weapons,” which transla- At 4.182 a similar phrase appears to indicate the walls
tion might however suggest modern weapon systems. themselves (τοὺς τῶν ἁγίων περιβόλους).
2524
The artistic phrase ὅπλα κινεῖν is used by Josephus also The small building housing the Holy Place and
at 4.99, 231; perhaps he takes it from Thucydides 1.82.1; Holy of Holies, distinguished from the “temple” as the
cf. Heron, Dioptr. 37; Plutarch, Num. 12.5. whole sacred precinct; see the note to “shrine” at 1.10.
2519 2525
Josephus’ Agrippa assumes that the Judeans in Presumably, the sacred objects that furnish the
revolt would themselves undertake hostilities against the shrine, especially the great menorah and the table of
neighboring cities. This is confirmed by 2.457-98: the the bread. This appeal on behalf of the shrine has been
killing of Judeans begins with the Caesarean massacre foreshadowed in the one made by Jerusalem’s leaders,
(2.457), followed by the widespread retaliation of Judean under Cumanus’ governorship, to a mob seeking revenge
raiding parties against the cities and villages of Samaria on the Samarians for the murder of a Galilean (2.237).
and the Decapolis (2.458-60). These cities turn against It also anticipates the final spectacle of the sacred ves-
their Judean populations because traditional apprehen- sels being paraded through Rome in the Flavian triumph
sion, Josephus claims, is now compounded by anger and (7.148-52). See Chapman 2005.
2526
fear (2.461). Agrippa’s point seems to be that a move This notice anticipates the speech of Titus,
against cities that have not harmed their own Judean responding to the request of John of Gischala and Simon
inhabitants (e.g. Gerasa, 2.458, 480) would be impious. bar Giora for negotiations, after the temple has burned
2520
The same collocation (εἰσέρχοµαι + οἶκτος) (6.323-27). In spite of his asserted right to have destroyed
appears at Ant. 1.176; 14.381; a similar phrase uses the rebellious city long before, Titus nevertheless offers a
εἴσειµι instead (see the note to “went into Petronius” at pledge of safety (6.347-50). When they scorn even this
2.198). For “compassion” (οἶκτος), a central theme of magnanimous pledge (2.351), Titus declares that he will
War , see the note at 1.12. spare no one and allows his enraged troops to sack and
2521
See the notes at 2.192 and (already in Agrippa’s burn the city (6.352-55).
2527
speech) 395. All 4 occurrences of this verb in War come at
2522
This is the first of 25 occurrences of µητρόπολις momentous occasions: also Josephus’ surrender to the
in War (against only 12 in Ant. 1-12; cf. esp. Ant. 3.245). Romans (3.354) and Titus’ declaration of innocence at
Unlike its English descendant, which suggests a large the temple’s defilement (6.127, twice).
2528
and sophisticated city, the Greek term indicates the capi- Josephus often speaks of “messengers of God”
tal of a region or the source-city to which nationals living (ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ), especially in Antiquities: 1.73, 198,
elsewhere looked as their home. Other nations likewise 333; 5.280; 9.21; 15.36; cf. War 5.388. Although the
have their own “mother-cities.” The term is particularly first noun is often transliterated “angels,” that rendering
appropriate here as Agrippa—himself king of territories imports a long Judeo-Christian tradition about “angels”
310 book two

safety.2530 You, if you have resolved on what is necessary,2531 will hold the peace in com-
mon with me, whereas if you have been led on by your tempers2532 you will face the peril
without me.”2533
(16.5) 402 When he had said such things as these he cried over [them], along with
his sister, and he halted much of the rush with the tears.2534 Yet they kept shouting out
that they were at war not with the Romans but with Florus,2535 because of what they had
suffered.2536 403 At this King Agrippa declared:
“But these actions are of people already at war with the Romans: you have not given
your tribute to Caesar2537 and you severed2538 the colonnades of the Antonia!2539 404 You

2532
that is not needed here. Divine messengers were well Agrippa’s entire speech has been about the con-
understood in the Greco-Roman world, not least in trag- trast between what is advantageous (see note at 2.346)
edy (cf. Chapman 1998: 19-20); at the next occurrence and what is just (e.g., retribution for mistreatment by
of the word, Josephus is God’s messenger (War 3.400). Roman governors). This recalls the Thucydidean-Poly-
2529
This doubly compounded verb (καθυφίηµι)— bian themes of eternal struggle between, on the one
“give up underhandedly, by treachery”—, though a hand, honor and necessity; on the other hand, between
favorite of Demosthenes (13 of the 19 attestations before reason and emotion, outrage, or temper (here pl. of
Josephus), is otherwise rare: Polybius (3.60.4) and Plu- θυµός). See the note to “irrational hope” at 2.346. This
tarch (Cic. 8.1) have it once each, Philo twice (Spec. contrast between political necessity and what “temper”
1.54; 3.61). Josephus will use it again at 6.200; Ant. would dictate is a fitting close to the oration.
2533
6.34, an observation that tends to confirm his control Josephus’ Agrippa concludes his remarks with a
over Agrippa’s speech. Whereas we might have expected neatly balanced antithesis. The matching future second-
the perfect tense if Agrippa was referring to the argu- person verbs representing the audience’s options (ἕξετε,
ments he has been making, the aorist is perhaps meant κινδυνεύσετε) create a forceful effect with homoioteleu-
to indicate his manner of governing before this crisis, ton; cf. Runnalls 1997: 750; Demetrius, Eloc. 27, 29.
2534
viewed as a whole: there was no point at which he sac- According to Cicero (Part. 27), the first and the
rificed the nation’s well being to nefarious purposes. last parts of a speech are chiefly aimed at arousing the
2530
This notice creates an inclusio with Agrippa’s open- audience’s emotion (ad motum animi valet). Cf. the sim-
ing declaration (2.346) that his speech would be about ilar conclusion of Josephus’ own speech at 5.419-20;
what was “advantageous” (or expedient, beneficial); see Eleazar, by contrast, is all sound and fury as his audience
the note there. Whereas the abstract noun σωτηρία (“res- is in tears (7.339-40).
2535
cue, safety, deliverance”) occurs 247 times in Josephus, Indeed, the speech was introduced with the narra-
the cognate adjective here (“that which saves, rescues, tor’s observation that the people insisted on sending an
is salutary”) appears only 12 times, 5 in War . The same embassy to Nero to complain about Florus’ behavior,
combination of terms as in this paragraph—what brings in order to clear themselves of any suspicion that they
safety vs. peril, reason vs. non-reason, deliberation or were interested in rebellion (2.342-43). This mismatch
resolve, and the clear choice between courses of action— between the content of Agrippa’s speech and its occasion
appears in Herodotus’ account (8.60) of Themistocles’ (see the note to “follows” at 2.345) now seems slightly
brief speech at Salamis, though that is for the opposite comical, as the people remind him that they were not
purpose: to persuade soldiers to fight now. The ethos seeking the war he has so eloquently rejected. His rather
here seems to owe more to Thucydidean and Polybian lame and belated connection between their actions and
Realpolitik (see the Excursus and notes to “necessary” the appearance of rebellion, in what follows, may be
and “tempers” here). understood either as clumsy construction (from a badly
2531
Greek τὰ δέοντα here forms an inclusio with assimilated source or an independent rhetorical exer-
the same phrase at 2.345 (see the note there), the open- cise) or as deliberate: showing the statesman’s decision
ing words of the speech (outside of Agrippa’s speech it to tackle the easier target of war with Rome because
occurs in War only at 4.225): what circumstances require he did not want to confront their desire for an embassy
(there as here) is to make peace. The phrase itself is (2.343)—rhetorical misdirection (see Excursus).
2536
particularly common in Xenophon (20 times) and Dem- Cf. 2.277-332: the narrator fully endorses the
osthenes (29 times). In Agrippa’s speech it has the sense claim that Florus’ behavior is intolerable.
2537
of what is dictated by circumstances, apart from consid- Although it is not clear precisely where the tribute
erations of honor or justice (see the note to “irrational went (into the provincial fiscus for imperial expenses, the
hope” at 2.346). public aerarium at Rome, or the emperor’s own fiscus
book two 311

will off-load the responsibility for the rebellion2540 if you re-attach these [colonnades]
and also pay your tax-levies.2541 For the fortress is certainly not Florus’s; nor will you be
giving the goods2542 to Florus.”
(17.1) 405 The populace was persuaded by these [words] and, with the king and Ber-
nice, went up into the temple and began the rebuilding of the colonnades.2543 The lead-
ers and the council-members,2544 having been assigned to the villages,2545 collected the

[construed either as his personal estate or as a separate ally considered to have been composed largely by 70
imperial-public treasury of growing importance]), there CE, mentions a date in April (Iyyar 27 [Artemision])
is no doubt that the emperor controlled it; see the note on which “the payment of the tribute was discontinued”
to “Caesar’s treasuries” at 2.111. The first option seems (‫)אתנטילו כלילאי‬.
most likely: the value would be recorded as income in Finally, it is unclear what if any official role Agrippa
the central treasury (aerarium) in Rome, but mainly kept II, as Judean king of a neighboring territory, had in
and used within the province; cf. A. H. M. Jones 1950. relation to tribute. He did have responsibilities in the
According to 2.405 (see note there), 40 talents’ worth mother-city, notably the appointment of the high priest
was the outstanding amount, which suggests that the rest (Ant. 20.179, 203, 213), and it was he who persuaded
had been collected. Although Agrippa has implied resis- Claudius to allow Judeans to keep the high priest’s robes
tance to tribute by contrasting other nations that pay their (Ant. 15.407; 20.9-12); he also intervened in important
tribute without complaint (2.383, 385), this is the first Judean political matters (War 2.245; Ant. 20.135) and
clear indication that many (rural?) Judeans have with- maintained building projects there, including a city wall
held taxes in protest against the governor. The question and his own palace (Ant. 20.189-93). It stands to reason
whether they ought to submit to census-based property that he would be expected, even if informally, to ensure
taxes for tribute had been controversial since the begin- that the Judean populace met its responsibility in this
ning of direct Roman rule in 6 CE. At 2.118 (see the note most basic duty. At 2.407, the king will send the Judean
to “Romans” there; cf. Ant. 18.1-4, 26) War ’s audience notables to Florus, in a fit of pique at his own maltreat-
has learned of a significant rebellion at that time, led ment, so that the procurator would have to choose tax
by Judas the Galilean—a reaction familiar from other gatherers “from among them.” This might suggest that
provinces. Antiquities elaborates that the people were the responsibility had been his, if only in the extreme
at first persuaded by a former high priest to accept the case of massive non-compliance at this point; or perhaps
imposition, but dissent continued; there Josephus makes he had volunteered, partly to preserve his own standing,
the responses to this issue in 6 CE a remote cause of the to shoulder the burden that normally fell on Jerusalem’s
war 60 years later (Ant. 18.3-10). leaders.
2538
It appears that the irritant never went away, except See the note to “cut through [them]” at 2.330.
2539
perhaps during the reign of King Agrippa I (37-41 CE). The incident was recounted in 2.330-31 above.
2540
The gospels present the matter as highly controversial in See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39 and to the
the decades following 6 CE (Mark 12:14; Matt 22:17; distinctively Josephan phrase—again demonstrating his
Luke 20:22; 23:2). Perhaps, then, Josephus has not authorial hand in the speech (echoed again at 2.418)—at
mentioned a deliberate cessation of tax payment in this 2.73.
2541
instance because it did not happen: perhaps it had always Notice the chiastic treatment of these two issues.
2542
been a matter of partial or grudging compliance, only Possibly “money.” Greek τὰ χρήµατα can indicate
now exacerbated by the protest against Florus. either cash or property, possessions, holdings, or goods.
It is also not clear from Josephus’ account whether It is likely that the tribute-tax was paid largely in pro-
the tribute, which presumably would be paid by the Jeru- duce, as in earlier times (see the note to “Romans” at
salem authorities in any case (see note to “Romans” at 2.118); hence the dispatch of officials to the villages for
2.118), was itself going unpaid because of this partial its collection (2.405). For an overview of scholarship on
default among the populace. Popular compliance would the Judean agrarian economy, see Harland 2002.
2543
certainly make payment easier for the Jerusalem authori- See the notes at 2.330-31.
2544
ties, and perhaps Agrippa is pushing for it also as a sym- I.e., members of the aristocratic leadership in
bolic action, to encourage popular support for harmony Jerusalem, anchored in the priesthood but including
with Rome. It may be that the authorities could have prominent laymen; see the note to “council” at 2.331.
2545
made up the 40-talent shortfall without this revenue. Although the urban creature Josephus focuses
But the Fasting Scroll, Megillat Ta‘anit (II: Iyyar), usu- almost exclusively on Jerusalem, in keeping with a
312 book two

taxes. And quickly the forty talents—for that is how much remained [owing]2546—were
gathered.
Agrippa II 406 Although Agrippa suppressed the threat of war at that time, he then kept trying
expelled, flees to
kingdom
again to persuade the mob to submit to Florus2547 until Caesar should send a successor in
place of him.2548 At this they became provoked2549 and slandered the king, and proclaimed
his banishment2550 from the city. Some of the insurgents2551 dared even to throw rocks at
him. 407 The king, seeing that the rush of the revolutionaries2552 was uncontrollable, and
showing his anger2553 that he had been treated insolently2554 by them, sent their leaders
along with the powerful [men]2555 to Florus at Caesarea2556 so that the latter might appoint
from them those who would levy tribute on the countryside,2557 while he withdrew to his
kingdom.2558

general political mindset that thought in terms of cities ishment from a Tiberias that is in revolt against him.
2551
(though he will deal with Galilean towns and villages to See the note to this key word at 1.10.
2552
some extent), this notice agrees with other incidental evi- This is the first of occurrence of Josephus’ distinc-
dence in his narratives (2.170, 229-30, 233-38, 253) that tive thematic term οἱ νεωτερίζοντες, for those fomenting
the Judean hinterland harbored more “conservative” or revolt against Rome. It was introduced as a neuter par-
even militant elements of the population than Jerusalem ticiple in the prologue (1.4) and then anticipated in the
itself, which seems to have paid its share of the tribute story of Archelaus’ accession (2.8); see the notes there.
without difficulty. The phrase will reappear in quick succession at 2.410,
2546
I.e., 40 talents’ worth: how much of this was in 417 (also 494, 652). Like “insurgents” and other such
cash and how much in kind is unclear. At any rate, since terms for trouble-makers, it completely obscures the
this was only the shortfall between the amount of tribute actual motives and outlooks of the people in question.
2553
exacted by Rome and revenues collected to date, the This verb χαλεπαίνω will appear again in bk.
tribute itself was much higher. In the 40s BCE Cassius 2 only at 2.412, a few sentences below. This illustrates
had required 700 talents’ tribute from Judea, of which Josephus’ habit of re-using a word in a short space and
Herod quickly produced the 100 owing from Galilee then dropping it.
2554
(1.220-221). Archelaus as Judean ethnarch had received The colorful verb προπηλακίζω occurs only here
400 talents in annual revenue (2.50, 97 with notes), and and at Apion 1.191 in Josephus. Although it literally
this may have been close to the Judean annual tribute. means “trample in [or spatter with] mud or earth,” it is
Tacitus (Ann. 2.42.5) remarks that in 17 CE delegates attested only in the metaphorical sense of dealing humili-
from both Syria and Judea, “exhausted by their burdens, ating treatment. Nevertheless, since people have been
begged [Tiberius for] a diminution of taxation.” It is throwing rocks at Agrippa, Josephus may have chosen
unclear, however, whether the tribute payment to Rome the verb carefully, with also literal overtones.
2555
would have been in jeopardy without this unpaid internal See the note to these stock labels at 2.239.
2556
revenue: see the note to “Caesar” at 2.403. Coastal Caesarea was the headquarters of the
2547
The narrative assumes what one would expect Roman governor (see the note at 2.16). Florus had
in the circumstances: ongoing antipathy to the gover- returned there from his mischief in Judea at 2.332.
2557
nor, with the constant potential for outbreaks of mili- Since the tribute has just been collected from
tant resistance. Whether Agrippa overplayed his hand the countryside (2.405), this must involve appointing
by saying more than was necessary, or only responded officials for the next collection. That may already be
to further dangerous incidents that Josephus does not imminent, given the delay in the previous round, though
mention, we cannot tell. By omitting the latter, Josephus in context the point seems more symbolic. In pique at
implies the former. his recent treatment, Agrippa hands the responsibility
2548
Agrippa thus returns to an opening argument from for choosing officials to Florus, the very one who had
his speech (2.352-54): no matter how bad he is, Florus aroused the hatred that led to the problem with tribute
will not last long, “and it is likely that the successors to in the first place. See the note to “Caesar” at 2.403: it
come will be more restrained.” appears that Agrippa had (voluntarily or on request) been
2549
See the note at 2.8, with the similar constructions organizing the collection of tribute arrears, at least from
there and at 2.11, 305. the villages.
2550 2558
The only other occurrence of ἐκκηρύσσω in Agrippa’s kingdom had begun with his being
Josephus comes later in the same book (2.633), when granted Chalcis (see the note to “kingdom” at 2.223)
Josephus himself, as Galilean commander, suffers ban- in 48/49 CE and then shifted S to encompass Philip’s
book two 313

(17.2) 408 At this point, some of those who were especially [keen on] setting the war Rebels take
in motion2559 got together and rushed against a certain fortress, called Masada.2560 They Masada
seized it by stealth,2561 butchered2562 the Roman guards,2563 and put in place others of their
own.2564
409 Meanwhile, in the temple, Eleazar2565 son of the high priest Ananias,2566 a very Eleazar son of
bold young man2567 serving as commandant2568 at the time, induced*2569 those performing Ananias ends
foreign sacrifice

former tetrarchy (Trachonitis, Batanea, Auranitis, and from 2.243 and Ant. 20.131 that his older brother Ananus
the Golan) plus Mt. Lebanon (53 CE), finally acquir- had served as temple commandant while his father Anan-
ing Abela and Iulias in Perea along with Tiberias and ias was the serving high priest. Ant. 20.208 reports that
Tarichea in Galilee (see 2.247, 252 with notes) in 55 some years earlier, Eleazar’s secretary had been kid-
CE. napped, in the expectation of ransom from his wealthy
2559
The narrator adopts the phrasing he has recently father—among the first of such kidnappings.
2566
crafted for Agrippa’s speech (2.354 [see the note to “set Son of Nedebeus according to Ant. 20.103,
in motion”], 362). Although he does not explain it here, appointed high priest by Herod of Chalcis in about 47/48
the nameless warmongers apparently belong to the fac- CE, just before Cumanus’ appointment as procurator,
tion of Manaem, a “son” (possibly descendant) of Judas Ananias apparently served a remarkably long time (until
the Galilean, for that group will soon extract weapons 59 CE; Ant. 20.179). His period in office was eventful: it
from the armory at Masada, without apparent resistance, included a trip to Rome to defend, before Claudius, the
in order to take over the siege of royal and Roman forces behavior of the Judeans in their conflict with Samarians.
in Jerusalem (2.433-34). At 7.297 Josephus will claim After his term he remained a wealthy and influential
that it was Eleazar b. Ya‘ir and his sicarii who took Mas- figure, also a target of sicarii kidnapping-ransom maneu-
ada by stealth, which must (assuming consistency) relate vers in the early 60s (see previous note, 2.243 with note,
to the event described here. Since Josephus will describe and Ant. 20.204-10).
2567
Eleazar as a relative of Manaem’s (2.447), that scenario See the notes to “bolder ones” at 2.238, 267, and
makes sense. Perhaps he omits Eleazar’s name to avoid to “youths” at 2.225. This combination of spirit and
audience confusion with the Eleazar introduced in the youth is typical of Josephus and other ancient writers.
next sentence, who is more important at this point. But according to Ant. 20.208, Eleazar was temple com-
2560
Josephus has introduced the desert fortress Mas- mandant already near the beginning of Albinus’ procura-
ada, on the southern stretch of the W coast of the Dead torship (20.204), which may have begun in 59/60 CE (see
Sea, and referred to it several times in bk. 1 (e.g., 237-38, note to War 2.272), or 62 CE on the standard dating: 4 to
264-66, 293-94). This economical notice serves to recall 6 years or more before the current episode. Granted that
the site in preparation for further brief mention in bk. 2: such a responsible position required considerable matu-
433, 447 (which looks ahead to the main Masada narra- rity, and that his older brother had held it in the early
tive of bk. 7), 653. 50s, it is hard to imagine that Eleazar was particularly
2561
Given Josephus’ later description of the near young. Josephus may well have assimilated him to the
impenetrability of the fortress (7.280-303), in prepara- stereotype of the hot-headed youth (see notes mentioned
tion for his description of the famous Roman siege, this above) in order to help explain away his behavior.
2568
offhand report is surprising. Compare λάθρα here with Or “supervisor, overseer, administrator, control-
δόλῳ (“craft, treachery, bait”), used of the taking of ler.” Note the characteristic inclusio, with the same verb
Masada by Eleazar’s sicarii, at 7.297. Both terms imply (στρατηγέω) at the end of this paragraph (2.410). This
something other than a direct assault; cf. the slaughter of verb had a wide range of possible meanings, from the
the Roman garrison in Jerusalem by a trick (2.450-53). standard “be a general” to “serve as consul, praetor”
2562
Or “cut the throats of ” (see the note at 2.30). in Rome, or in one of the many non-military senses of
2563
Presumably an outpost of the Judean (Sebastene στρατηγός in the Greek East. In this case, Eleazar held
and Caesarean) auxiliary forces under the procura- the position of responsibility for the proper running and
tor’s control, albeit with Roman officers; see the note security of the temple precincts (often called the “cap-
to “Sebastenes” at 2.52. It is possible that the outpost taincy” in English): cf. 6.294; Ant. 20.131; Luke 22: 4,
fortresses were manned by small legionary detachments 52; Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26. The position is usually equated
(from Syria). with that of sagan (‫ )סגן‬in rabbinic literature (Schürer-
2564
See the note to “motion”: sicarii led by Eleazar Vermes 2.277-78), an official second in rank after the
and Menachem. high priest, though the general gulf between Greek and
2565
Although this is the first appearance of this Eleazar rabbinic sources for groups and institutions in 1st-century
in War, we may infer (as Josephus’ audience could not) Judea suggests caution in making the link.
314 book two

the services of worship2570 to accept no gift2571 or sacrifice from any outsider.2572 This was
a foundation of war2573 against the Romans, for they cast aside2574 the sacrifice on behalf
of these [the Romans] and Caesar.2575 410 With both the chief priests and the notables2576

2569 2572
See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. The choice of word (ἀλλότριος rather than
2570
Representing τοὺς κατὰ τὴν λατρείαν λει- ἀλλόφυλος, which often functions positively in Jose-
τουργοῦντας. For the verb, see the note at 2.321. The phus) perhaps enhances the sense of strangeness or hos-
noun λατρεία occurs only here in Josephus, and infre- tility from the perspective of the priests involved. As
quently before his time, most often in the sense of a Schürer-Vermes (2.309-12) observe with many examples,
slave’s or hired worker’s service (Aeschylus, Prom. 966; gentile sacrifice was a longstanding tradition, recognized
Sophocles, Trach. 830; Ajax 503; Euripides, Phoin. 225; in the earliest biblical texts (Lev 22:25), analyzed in later
cf. Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.9.2; 4.44.3). Plato, however, rabbinic literature (m. Shek. 1:5; 7:6; Zeb. 4:5; Men. 5:3,
uses it of service to the Gods (Phaedr. 244e; Apol. 23c), 5, 6; 6:1; 9:8), and widely attested for the intervening
as do the LXX (Exod 12:26; 1 Chron 28:13), 1 Mac- centuries (Josephus, Ant. 11.329-30; 13.242-43; 16.14;
cabees (1:43), Philo (Spec. 2.167), and the NT writers 18.122; Apion 2.48). At the end of the 2nd century CE
(John 16:2; Rom 12:1). Its religious use becomes very Tertullian (Apol. 26) also recalls that the Romans used
common among Christian authors, with thousands of to honor the temple with sacrifices and offerings. See
occurrences. further the note to “Caesar” in this section.
2571 2573
This was an extremely bold position to take. The See the similar phrase at 2.260 with note and the
temple in Jerusalem had always been the recipient of for- repetition of this phrase (with articles) at 2.417. At 2.284
eigners’ gifts (see the note to “treasury of God” at 2.50), Josephus has claimed that the Caesarean conflict marked
famously those of King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 7:13-45; the beginning of the war—with good reason (see the
9:11-14) and the Queen of Sheba (2 Kgs 10:1-10). Jose- notes there). At 4.318 he will say that the overthrow
phus’ Solomon, in dedicating his temple to God, empha- of the city began with the death of Ananus. Given the
sizes the biblical point that supplicants from the ends of absence of a definite article here, the choice of lan-
the earth are welcome (Ant. 8.116-17; 1 Kgs 8:41-43). guage (not beginning-point but “a foundation”), and the
Ps-Aristeas (42, 51-82) describes lavish gifts purportedly internal coherence of thought—this action laid down a
given by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and various promi- marker for coming war—there is no need to see these
nent Romans contributed generously (Philo, Legat. 297; claims as contradictory.
2574
Josephus, War 4.181; Ant. 14.488). Josephus will claim This verb (ἀπορρίπτω), which will reappear in the
that John of Gischala melted down costly temple vessels, voice of the Judean elders at 2.416, is well chosen for
some of which had been presented by Augustus, his fam- its connotation of contempt.
2575
ily, and his successors: “Indeed, the kings of the Romans On this important twice-daily sacrifice, contrib-
always honored and added furnishings to the temple” uted by (or at least offered for the sake of) the Roman
(5.562-63). Cf. Schürer-Vermes 2.312-13. rulers, see the note to “Roman people” at 2.197. It was
Herod must have expected large numbers of gentile a fundamental expression of loyalty to the empire and,
visitors, for he left much of his massive temple platform at the same time, of the Judeans’ acceptance of imperial
accessible to them (see note to “permitted” at 2.341), reverence for their deity. Daily sacrifice on the emperor’s
though admittedly he was not free to expand some of behalf was a suitably Judean way of associating with the
the central holy spaces beyond biblical prescriptions. imperial cult of the E Mediterranean, which understood
There is abundant evidence for the regular presence of the emperor and his family as chief sacrificers (seeking
such visitors (cf. Jeremias 1969: 58-77). This episode divine protection for their subjects) as well as being—in
raises many practical questions, e.g.: How to distinguish other cities—themselves objects of sacrifice. Just as Pliny
among different kinds of foreigners and their gifts? Was reported to Trajan that his province of Pontus-Bithynia
it only politically connected gifts from rulers that were had renewed its oath of loyalty by offering sacrifice for
excluded? What about those from the many “Judaizers” Trajan’s well being (Ep. 10.100), to which Trajan replied
(e.g., of the sort about which Tacitus complains in Hist. with complete satisfaction, so the daily Jerusalem sac-
5.5), which seemed to have joined the world-wide contri- rifice in this vein was an important symbol of loyalty.
butions for the temple from diaspora Judeans? What rea- For an entirely different analysis, see Bernett 2007 (and
son could there be for rejecting such contributions? What the note at 2.197).
if those contributors went so far as to identify become Unilaterally abolishing this sacrifice, even if it was
Judeans (through male circumcision or the initiation rites not a formal requirement of participation in the empire,
for women)? would have implied much the same sense of insult as
book two 315

constantly appealing to them not to jettison this custom on behalf of the rulers, they
would not give in: having come to rely much on their own throng, for the most vigorous
[element] of the revolutionaries2577 were working with them,2578 they were also looking
intently to Eleazar as their commandant.2579
(17.3) 411 At any rate, when the powerful [men]2580 had come together with the chief Leaders
priests,2581 into the same [place]2582 also with the notables among the Pharisees,2583 given convene in
temple, demand
what seemed already irremediable calamities,2584 they began deliberating about the whole reinstatement of
situation. [With the] notion2585 of subjecting the insurgents2586 to a trial with words,2587 they sacrifices. Life
21

desecrating temples to Rome and Augustus in other cit- that combines leading Pharisees with the more standard
ies. The emperors since Augustus had reportedly offered Judean leadership groups (see note to “chief priests” in
worship to the Judean God and supported his cult with- this sentence). It anticipates what Antiquities will spell
out expecting a reciprocal recognition of Greco-Roman out (13.297-98; 18.15, 17): that Pharisees had avenues of
deities; cutting off even this avenue of generosity (as access to the masses that were unavailable to the priestly
Josephus presents it) could only be understood by Rome aristocracy. Although the most prominent Pharisees (as
as offensive behavior on the part of the Judean élite. here) were wealthy and well connected (cf. Life 189-98),
2576
This pair is another variation on Josephus’ stan- as a group they lacked the hereditary claims and social
dard descriptions of the highest élite echelon (see the status of the chief priests. Inclusion of the Pharisees’
notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and to “chief priests” leading representatives in this emergency council, men-
and “notables” at 2.243). In the next sentence (2.411) tioned also at Life 21 as a special event, appears to be
these highest aristocrats will meet again, but unusually, a diplomatic necessity, part of the élite’s effort to reach
with the most eminent Pharisees. See notes there. and calm the masses by every available means.
2577 2584
See the note at 2.407. See the note to this charged adjective (“irremedi-
2578
In 2.451 it will emerge that these prominent sup- able suffering”) at 2.233. The noun is also programmatic
porters of Eleazar included Gorion son of Nicomedes, (συµφορά), enhancing the tragic tone of War and bk. 2;
Ananias son of Sadok, and Ioudas son of Ionathes; the see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. This clause might be intended
last two will form half of the delegation that will try to to explain the unusual collaboration of chief priests and
oust Josephus from his Galilean command (2.628). other leading men with prominent Pharisees.
2579 2585
Since the verb στρατηγέω occurs outside of this As punctuated by Niese and other modern edi-
passage only at 2.567 in War 2, its appearance at the tors, this construction is more elliptical than usual for
beginning and end of this paragraph seems to constitute Josephus: after a high stop (semi-colon), καὶ δόξαν
a deliberate word-play: the temple commandant, a high [ἀποπειραθῆναι τῶν στασιαστῶν λόγοις . . . ἀθροίζουσι
official in the priestly tradition, has suddenly become τὸν δῆµον]. The Greek MSS reveal no demurral, though
“commandant” of a distinctly non-traditional cabal. the Latin seems to treat δόξαν as an object of the earlier
2580
See the note at 2.239 and the terms at 2.243. finite verb “began deliberating” as it recasts the whole
2581
Josephus almost formulaically pairs chief priests (et uidentes quam grauibus malis pergerent subigere
and powerful men or notables, in designating the highest ciuitatem, decreuerunt seditiosorum animos experiri et
level of Jerusalem’s élite (cf. 2.243, 301, 316, 318, 322, ante. . . ). Other modern translations appear to render
336, 422, 428, 648). Different here is the presence of the δόξαν as if it were a participle (δοξάντες, δοκοῦντες),
Pharisees (see next notes). which is reasonable but hard to read from the text. As a
2582
This phrase (εἰς ταὐτό) might go either with what last resort, I treat it as an accusative absolute.
2586
precedes (powerful men and chief priests) or with what See the note to this key word at 1.10.
2587
follows (those two and Pharisees). In favor of the latter The same construction (ἀποπειραθῆναι τῶν [X]
is that chief priests and powerful men frequently appear λόγοις) appears at 2.523, where King Agrippa puts the
together without need for elaboration (previous note). Judeans to the test with words, and a similar one at Ant.
The Pharisees, here meeting in the same place with them, 5.103. In all cases the phrase anticipates the use of ora-
are the unusual element (see next note)—apparently as a tory to prevent fighting—precisely what the statesman
result of the recognized emergency. should do (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 801c-804c). Since the
2583
The Pharisees have been introduced to the audi- construction, though unattested in other writers, appears
ence at 1.110-114, 571; 2.119, 162-66 (on which Mason in both War and Antiquities, it seems to reflect Josephus’
1991, 2007a). The present passage is the only one in War characteristic language.
316 book two

assembled* the populace in front of the bronze gate,2588 which was the one belonging to
the inner temple2589 directed toward the sunrise.2590
412 First they gave full vent to their anger2591 at the audacity2592 of the rebellion2593
and at their inciting2594 such a great war in the ancestral homeland; then they turned to
refuting utterly the irrationality2595 of the justification,2596 stating that their ancestors2597
had furnished2598 the shrine mostly from the foreigners, always welcoming the gifts from
outside nations.2599 413 And not only had they not prohibited the sacrifices of certain
people, for this is most impious,2600 but they also [did not prohibit] them from dedicat-

2588
Josephus features this massive gate of Corinthian the sun’s rays (Ant. 3.184). Ant. 15.418 also puts this
bronze—of much greater value than those overlaid with gate “on the side where the sun rises.” Such orientations
gold and silver—in his two main descriptions of the to the sun were entirely familiar to Greco-Roman audi-
temple (War 5.201; Ant. 15.418). This was the gate, ences, e.g. in the temples of Zeus at Olympia or Athena
according to the latter passage, through which ritually at Athens.
pure priests entered the inner temple compound with 2591
See the note to “showed his anger” at 2.407
their wives. That awkward detail should perhaps not above—the verb’s only other occurrence in War 2.
upset the consensus view, based on m. Mid. 2:3, that 2592
See the note to “brazenness” at 2.108.
this was Nicanor’s Gate, which stood atop 15 rounded 23 2593
See the note at 2.39.
cm (9-in) steps rising up from the 61 m (200 ft) square 2594
The verb ἐπισείω means literally to shake some-
Court of Women (diminished by large chambers on thing at someone, to scare them, or to provoke a reac-
each corner), leading to the Court of Israelites, through tion. It occurs in Josephus only here and at War 1.215;
which one reached the Court of the Priests and the cen- 4.302. It matches well the “goading” and “courting” of
tral shrine: hence it was “the one outside the shrine” 2.414 below.
(War 5.201)—visible from and directly E of the Holy 2595
On rationality as the statesman’s criterion, see the
of Holies. note to “irrational hope” at 2.346.
This also appears to be the gate, requiring 20 men to 2596
This (πρόφασις) is a significant term in Josephus’
open and shut, that is said by Josephus to have opened
lexicon of causation; see the note at 2.285.
of its own accord one night as an omen of the temple’s 2597
The appeal to ancestral tradition had great rhetori-
destruction (6.293); it may also be the Beautiful Gate
cal force in many ancient cultures, not least the Roman,
of Acts 3:2, 10. The Mishnah (Mid. 2:5) claims that the
in which the mos maiorum had axiomatic validity. Jose-
Levites used to sing from the steps before this gate. The
phus presents himself as sharing the same assumptions,
Babylonian Gemara has many stories about the gate and
most obviously in the projects of Antiquities and Apion
its donor, at least some of them fanciful (e.g., b. Pes. 85b,
92a; Yom. 11a, 19a, 30b, 31a, 37a, 38a; Naz. 45a). At on the antiquity of his people (cf. War 1.17) and in the
any rate, the podium created by the staircase leading to speech of his character at War 5.362-419 (esp. 376-77,
this bronze gate, sitting about 11 ft (3.35 m) above the 390, 399).
2598
Women’s Court, would be the logical site for a speech in Or “decorated, decked out.” The perfect tense of
the temple area for the Judean public only: within a large κοσµέω indicates that the results are still present (as
enclosed space beyond the access of gentiles. 2.413).
2599
2589
I.e., the relatively small walled compound in the See the note to “gift” at 2.409.
2600
centre-west of the vast temple mount constructed by The Judeans had every reason to avoid any impu-
Herod, presumably within the boundaries of the Court tation of “impiety,” which easily attached to them, along
of Israelites, possibly including the Court of Women with the “atheism” and “misanthropy” charges, because
beyond the balustrade prohibiting gentile access (see of their exclusive cult, diet, and manner of life: they
the note to “permitted” at 2.341 and previous note in could not participate in the worship of other deities (e.g.,
this section). Tacitus, Hist. 5.3-5). Josephus is keenly aware of this,
2590
Josephus could simply have said that the gate was and in the Apion he pointedly refutes each accusation
on the E side (as does m. Mid. 1:4; 2:6), but he has an (see 2.148, 291—“the laws. . . teach not impiety but the
abiding interest in the sun as divine symbol—or possibly truest piety”—see the commentary and bibliography in
as a deity. See the note to “prayers to him” at 2.128. Barclay, BJP 10). Since the welcoming of strangers into
He has Moses position the tabernacle and the altar so Judean culture was the best way of demonstrating the
as to catch the sun’s first rays (Ant. 3.115; 4.305) and nation’s benevolence and generosity (cf. Apion 2.261,
describes the high priest’s upper garment as representing 281-83), given that Judeans would not participate in for-
book two 317

ing2601 the votive offerings around the temple,2602 which can be seen and remain in place
for such a long time.2603
414 But now they were goading2604 the weapons of the Romans and, while courting2605
war from them, were also grafting in2606 a strange [form of] worship.2607 Along with the
danger,2608 they had voted to condemn2609 the city for impiety2610—if among the Judeans
alone an outsider could neither sacrifice nor make obeisance.2611 415 Whereas if someone
were to introduce this law2612 for one individual, they2613 would be indignant at the unso-
ciableness of the exclusion,2614 they were standing by and watching as the Romans—and

2607
eign cults, it would be catastrophic from this élite per- The phrase (θρησκεία ξένη) is cleverly ironic,
spective, reinforcing the worst stereotypes of non-Judean given the issue: since Judean worship has always accepted
observers, to cut off even this area of shared piety. the support of strangers, by not accepting these they are
2601
The verb καθιδρύω occurs in War only here and innovating a strange, alien form of worship (though they
at 1.404. do so under the guise of protecting Judean tradition from
2602
It is not easy, however, to picture what these gifts what is alien).
2608
might have been, since Exod 20:4-6 was generally under- I.e., the danger of direct confrontation with Rome,
stood to exclude human or animal images, which con- which (as 2.418 observes) would naturally face the lead-
stituted the bulk of votive gifts to other temples (see the ers first.
2609
note to “trampled” at 2.170). Philo (Leg. 2.199) recounts The verb καταψηφίζοµαι occurs in War again
Pontius Pilate’s dedication of some gold shields, blank only at 6.250, a rough symmetrical parallel. The sense
except for the name of donor and honoree (Tiberius), in may be that they have created the conditions in which
the Herodian palace—not in the temple. Although it is others would “vote Jerusalem out” of the community
difficult to see the cause of offense, Philo claims that of nations.
2610
Pilate did this in large part to cause distress among the See the note to “impious” at 2.413.
2611
populace. Presumably, foreign donors to the temple were The fundamental expectation that foreigners,
careful to give blank medallions or shields, crowns, or especially dignitaries, should normally offer worship to
objects bearing only geometrical patterns or scenes of local Gods as they visited other cities is captured well
plant life. in Suetonius’ observation (Aug. 93) that Augustus was
2603
Cf. 4.180-82, where the former high priest Ananus grateful to his grandson Gaius for not stopping in Jeru-
tragically contrasts the Romans, who have respectfully salem to worship, as he hurried from Egypt to Syria—
contributed votive offerings to the temple from afar, implying that the norm would be to stop. Just before
which are still visible around the courtyard, with the Agrippa’s speech the visiting tribune Neopolitanus has
Judeans’ murder and plunder of each other within the done precisely this (2.341). The placement of that epi-
sacred space (ostensibly because of their hatred of the sode—saying in effect, “Look what happens when a fair
Romans). By having the elders use vivid representation, and well-intentioned Roman official visits Jerusalem”—
Josephus achieves the same effect (ἐνάργεια) with his gives added force to the elders’ objection here.
2612
literary audience. Presumably: a law banning gifts or sacrifices from
2604
See the note at 2.316: throughout the latter half some person.
2613
of War 2 (2.316, 321, 350, 493), leaders constantly urge Possibly “he” (as Whiston), since the subject of
the Judeans not to goad the Romans. the infinitive is tacit, though the overall logic suggests
2605
Of 13 occurrences in Josephus, µνηστεύω appears a contrast between the rebel priests’ attitudes towards
in War only here and at 1.570. Most often it has a literal ordinary individuals and towards the Romans. The mean-
sense (in relation to love and marriage); it is metaphori- ing is unclear, however, for it is not obvious why these
cal here and at Ant. 17.2 (“courting danger,” much as priests would be upset on humanitarian grounds about
here). the exclusion of a (foreign) individual.
2606 2614
Or “excavating.” Greek καινοτοµέω appears only Although the general sense of ὡς ὁριζοµένης
here and, in a similar metaphorical sense, in the speech ἀπανθρωπίας is clear, the nuances of the words and
of Josephus’ character at 5.402. Meaning literally “cut the precise syntax yield several possibilities. Is the par-
a new [vein, in mining, or path],” it had, along with its ticiple middle or passive? If the latter, is the aggrieved
cognate noun, an established usage for political innova- person indignant at his own exclusion, or should the
tion (Plato, Euth. 3b, 16a; Leg. 709a, 797c; Aristotle, rebel priests be? Or should they be indignant at the act
Pol. 1305b, 1316b; Polybius 15.30.1). of excluding (middle voice)? The noun ἀπανθρωπία
318 book two

Caesar—became “outside the pact.”2615 416 Indeed they had become alarmed that, after
casting aside2616 the sacrifices on behalf of those people [Romans and Caesar], they might
prevent sacrificing also on their own behalf,2617 and the city would become “outside the
pact” in the empire, unless they quickly came to their senses,2618 restored2619 the sacrifices,
and put right the outrage—before the report went out to those whom they had outraged.
(17.4) 417 While they were saying these things, they brought forward the priests who
were experts in the ancestral [traditions],2620 who explained that all their ancestors used to
accept the sacrifices from strangers.2621 No one among the revolutionaries2622 was paying
attention; but neither were the bandit-types2623 allowing [it]2624—furnishing2625 the founda-
tion of the war.2626

(rendered adjectivally for simplicity) occurs only here himself in mentioning these experts—also adding an air
and at Ant. 16.161 in Josephus. of mystery for his Roman audience. For their sake he
2615
This vivid adjective (ἔκσπονδος), meaning liter- might also be suggesting a parallel with Etruscan experts
ally “outside the libation [signaling a treaty],” is chosen in Rome. The Etruscans held the paradoxical position
for the rhetorical contrast coming in the next sentence— of being not precisely Roman, but having crucial func-
its only appearances in Josephus. Well represented in its tions in Roman public cult as haruspices and perhaps as
literal sense in the orators and occasionally in historians, interpreters of the Sibylline Oracles (cf. Beard, North,
it has little attestation in later writers (no doubt because and Price 1998: 1.24, 101-2; 2.175-78).
2621
of the pagan associations). This is a remarkably apt choice of diction (ἀλλο-
2616
See the note at 2.409. That Josephus uses the γενής) for these experts in Judean tradition. It is the
same language in both his narrator’s voice and for his only appearance of this word in Josephus: although the
characters illustrates his complete authorial control. sense would be obvious to any Greek speaker, the word
2617
Apparently, the prominent leaders, chief priests, is attested almost exclusively in Judean (and Christian)
and eminent Pharisees are worried that they themselves circles: 47 times in the LXX—where it often translates
will soon be excluded from temple worship, which is ‫ בן נכר‬or ‫( זר‬e.g., Exod 12:43; 29:33; Lev 22:10,
indeed what happens at 2.426 below. 13)—including apocrypha; 4 times in Philo; Luke 17:18;
2618
See the note to “to their senses,” an important Jos. Asen. 4.12; then in Justin and later Christian and
verb of rational behavior, at 2.346. Jewish authors. It is not found in Greek authors except
2619
This verb (ἀποδίδωµι) provides a counterbalance, Plutarch (Mor. [Carn. 2] 997e) and the epitome of the
with the same prefix, to that translated “casting aside” obscure grammarian, Diogenianus.
2622
above. The prefix might indicate either “giving back,” in See the note at 2.407.
2623
the sense of something owed or due, or “giving again” as The textual variants reveal a fascinating problem.
before, or restoring, or both. Although the latter sense is MSS PAM, followed by Niese, have “bandit elements”
indicated here, when Jesus answers the Pharisees’ ques- (λῃστρικοί), whereas L1VRC, M’s margin, Latin, and
tion about tribute in the gospels, he uses the same verb Hegesippus all read “(priestly) ministers, attendants”
(ἀποδότε: Mark 12:17; Matt 22:21; Luke 20:25) for the (λειτουργοί), which is followed by Thackeray in LCL,
famous “render unto Caesar.” Pelletier, Vitucci, and M-B. Earlier attestation (in the
2620
It is curious that a distinguished group led by the Latin) thus favors the latter, though it does not certainly
chief priests (2.411) should now bring forth “priestly appear elsewhere in Josephus; it is a variant at Ant. 13.55.
experts,” as if these were a different group (a subset?), The former term is doubly unexpected: first, because
since Josephus elsewhere insists that the priests, led by of the troublesome logical connection between bandits
the chief priests, are the experts (3.352; Ant. 4.304, 324; and the temple priests; second, because Josephus hardly
12.49; Life 1-9, 198; Apion 1.29-36, 54; 2.185-87). In ever uses the adjective λῃστρικός as a masculine plural
rhetorical flight he will even claim that only other nations substantive (though see 2.264 and note). These problems
need to consult experts, for all Judeans know their laws mean, however, that “bandit-types” is easier to under-
intimately (Apion 2.177-78; cf. Barclay ad loc. in BJP stand as the original term, modified by later copyists (as
10). Still, he occasionally admits that a few priests are in M’s margin) because of its incomprehensibility.
conspicuous as towering authorities, most especially his Three further considerations support this view. First,
good self (Ant. 20.262-66; Life 9). the distance between revolutionary priests and bandits
Since Josephus was apparently present in Jerusalem is not far in Josephus’ world of language (see the note
at this time, and part of these discussions (Life 21), it to “bandit bloc” at 1.11). Second, in his later parallel to
is entirely possible, if unprovable, that he is thinking of this episode (Life 21) Josephus will explicitly mention
book two 319

418 Once they comprehended that the civil strife2627 was already uncontainable2628 by Leading men
send envoys to
Florus, Agrippa
II. Life 23

Manaem (Menachem) as leader of the bandit element. partisans. Although Josephus begins War with this nor-
So it seems likely that he was thinking of “bandits” and mal meaning, as he describes Hasmonean factionalism
rebellious priests together at this point (cf. 2.433 below). (1.31), Price contends that here and in other passages
Finally, the sentence structure here, with its emphatic dealing with the first year of the war (especially 2.434,
distinction between the rebellious priests and both the 437) Josephus uses the term in a new and problematic
identity and the situation of the group next mentioned, way, as the project of only one group, such that it can be
suggests that they were quite different. said to have a leader: στάσις then amounts to uprising
2624
Reading προσίεσαν (from προσίηµι) with MSS or sedition rather than factionalism (which must have
PAVR, followed by Niese and M-B, rather than “joining at least two leaders). Josephus is now a fully involved
in, coming to [the elders’] support” (προσῄεσαν, from reporter, pinning blame on only a few extremists (it is
πρόσειµι), agreeing with the Latin procedebant and fol- their στάσις) who stand over against the populace and
lowed by Thackeray, Vitucci, and Pelletier. Whichever the good leaders. For Price (2003: 20-21), this “instabil-
word is read, the meaning is obscure, and dependent ity” of usage betrays Josephus’ underlying knowledge
in part on the problematic subject (see “bandit-types” that the war was not after all a matter of serious internal
and note). The sentence could mean: temple servants or conflict, as he misleadingly claims, but a largely unified
bandits were not allowing access (to the temple); temple uprising against Rome. This analysis in turn supports
servants or bandits did not come to the aid of the elders Price’s earlier argument that Josephus has attempted to
(so Thackeray, Vitucci, Pelletier); temple servants did not conceal the reality that prominent members of the aris-
attend to their duties (so Whiston); or temple servants tocracy led the nation in a bid for independence (Price
did not appear (so M-B). But all of those explanations 1992: 32-33; cf. Goodman 1987: 167-68).
require a good deal of supplementation. Although Price claims that the Thucydidean script
The route to a simpler approach may lie in the obser- followed by Josephus should not have allowed him to
vation that this verb predicated of the second subject present στάσις as external to Jerusalem’s leaders (2003:
closely matches the one predicated of the first group—in 14-15), and that Josephus adopts this meaning only in
tense, form (with προσ- prefixes), and meaning—sug- relation to the war’s first year, the major example of
gesting a certain parallelism. The meaning may be, then, στάσις in Antiquities—the rebellion of Korah against
that just as the rebel priests would not pay heed, so also Moses (Ant. 4.12-66, 76)—closely matches War ’s usage.
the “bandit-types” (i.e., militant demagogues such as That is, Korah’s actions create a civil strife needing reso-
Manaem) would not agree either. With these two influ- lution: Korah is the one who both generates and leads
ential groups rejecting the direction of the senior priests, the στάσις (4.12-15. NB: Feldman in BJP 3 translates
the foundation for war was laid. both “sedition” and “civil strife,” from one sentence to
2625
The verb ἐνσκευάζω occurs 9 times in Josephus, the next). Moses is plainly not a partisan in that στάσις,
but only in War 1-6. Before his time it appears rarely which cannot therefore be described as factionalism;
(notably Aristophanes, Acharn. 384, 436, 1096; Xeno- Moses and God deliver the people from this strife by
phon, Cyr. 8.5.11; Plato, Crito 53d), but 5 times in Philo removing the instigator (4.12-13). The στάσις under
(Sacr. 28; Ebr. 7; Somn. 2.182; Flacc. 40; Legat. 94), Archelaus in War 2.10-11 seems to fall into the same cat-
then commonly in Plutarch, Dio, Lucian, and contempo- egory: the ethnarch-designate is not a factionalist when
raries. Again we see Josephus using language that was in he tries to suppress the “civil strife.” These examples
vogue at his time, with Philo as a significant precursor. are in accord with Plutarch’s contemporary Precepts of
2626
The repetition of this programmatic phrase from Statecraft, which sees the statesman as standing above
2.409, now with articles for each noun, creates an inclu- and outside στάσις, while making every effort to prevent
sio: it is now clearer, with the recalcitrance of the priests or cure it (Mor. 815b, c-f): “he must not create storms
and of the “bandits,” why this became the foundation himself, and yet he must not abandon [the state] when
of the war. such storms descend; but when [the state] is reeling and
2627
See the note to this key word at 1.10. J. Price endangered, he must come to its aid, his frankness of
(2003) finds in Josephus a confusion of usage reflecting speech being just like a sacred anchor heaved over into
a conflicted attitude to the war. He argues (2003: 11-19) the greatest [depths, perils].”
that for Thucydides and subsequent Greek authors through Acknowledging Josephus’ (or other writers’) debts to
Josephus’ time, στάσις was the condition of city or state Thucydides does not require understanding War’s lan-
facing internal conflict or factionalism, from the perspec- guage such that shifts in usage imply “misreadings” of
tive of a detached outside observer, the insiders all being the master. Plato already explores various nuances of the
320 book two

them and that the danger from the Romans would come to them first,2629 the powerful
[men] tried to off-load the responsibility2630 and sent envoys: some, of whom Simon the son
of Ananias2631 was the leader, to Florus;2632 others, among whom were the distinguished2633
Saul, Antipas, and Costobar,2634 who were connected to the king by ancestry,2635 to Agrip-
pa.2636 419 They pleaded with both [men] to come up2637 into the city with a force and
amputate2638 the civil strife2639 before it became uncontainable.2640

term στάσις (see note at 1.10). For Josephus and many phus mentions their being part of (rather than leading)
of his contemporaries (cf. Rowe and Schofield 2005: the delegation suggests that he has other reasons to men-
18-20), this term indicates above all the opposite of con- tion them here. It fits with his common practice to antici-
cord (ὁµόνοια). Josephus regularly contrasts these two pate, with incidental notices, more significant actions
terms: 1.460; 4.369; 5.72, 441; 6.215 (note especially later. In this case, the audience will later learn (2.556-58)
the last). It is difficult to imagine that a Greek-speaking that Costobar and Saul are brothers, that all 3 men will
audience would have found anything odd or conflicted be trapped in the Herodian palace after their return with
in his usage. royal troops (cf. 2.421, 430-37), and that Antipas—a
2628
Here we have a stunning example of Josephus’ member of the royal family, at some point placed in
lexical proclivities. In his entire corpus, the adjective charge of the public treasury—would ultimately die at
δυσκαθαίρετος occurs only here and in the next sen- rebel hands (cf. 4.140-41), whereas after Cestius’ defeat
tence, illustrating his tendency to re-use a word quickly at Beit-Horon Costobar and Saul will flee Jerusalem to
and then drop it. The meager attestation of the word join his forces. Ant. 20.214 adds the surprising informa-
outside of his corpus equally fits the pattern: before him tion (though characteristic of the differences between
it appears only in Philo (Leg. 1.86; Mos. 1.9), but then the major works) that before 66 CE, while Albinus was
his contemporary Plutarch has it (Mor. [Garr.] 511c; cf. procurator, Costobar and Saul behaved as lawless men,
Pollux, Onom. 1.171; Zenobius, Epit. 6.52). After the 2nd in spite of the royal lineage that brought them favor in
century it disappears for nearly a millennium. the public eye, and operated gangs of thugs who engaged
2629
See the note to “danger” at 2.414. Naturally, the in violent robbery.
2635
Romans would hold the Judean leadership responsible Exactly how they are related is unclear, but Kok-
for an act of rebellion that emanated from the temple and kinos (1998: 201-5) makes plausible proposals: Costobar
its public ceremonies, which should be in their control. and Saul might be the grandsons of Herod’s sister Salome
To persuade the Romans otherwise will require embas- and Costobar (inherently likely because of the name—
sies. and, I would add, the common practice of papponymy
2630
See the note to this distinctive Josephan phrase [Hachlili 2005: 201-2]), their parents being Antipater
at 2.73. (III) and the older Berenice (b. ca. 31 BCE). If so, they
2631
Although the Ananias in question is presumably might have been born as late as the fi rst decade CE,
the former high priest, just mentioned as Eleazar’s father which would still make them near 60 at the time of these
(2.409; cf. 2.243), which would explain why the son was events, somewhat older than King Agrippa II, who is
chosen to lead this important mission, Simon—bearer only about 38. This Antipas, though of royal blood (War
of the most commonly attested name in Judea (Hachlili 4.140), is entirely obscure: Kokkinos (1998: 161 n. 29,
2005: 200)—appears only here. If he is a brother of both 202) conjectures that he might be the son of Phasael II
Ananus and Eleazar, the former and current temple com- (b. 47/46 BCE) or of Antipas the tetrarch, or a different
mandants, who rejects one brother’s interest in challeng- descendant of the brothers’ father.
2636
ing Rome, Josephus does not pause to explain it. The king is in his own kingdom to the N/NE,
2632
The last we heard of Florus (2.407) he was in perhaps in Caesarea Philippi (2.407).
2637
Caesarea. Agrippa II had sent some Jerusalem leaders See the note to “up” at 2.16.
2638
to him, to make new arrangements for the collection The verb ἐπικόπτω appears only here and at 4.168
of tribute. in Josephus. It is lightly attested in literature before his
2633
This is the first occurrence of ἐπίσηµος in War time (perhaps a dozen cases), but more heavily used
2 (cf. 2.448, 585), though the word appears 53 times from Plutarch (3 occurrences) onward.
2639
in Josephus (62 including cognates); it is a functional See the notes at 1.10; 4.18.
2640
equivalent of several other terms for members of the élite See the note in the previous sentence (2.418): a
(see the note to “powerful [men]” at 2.239). brief inclusio. There the situation was already uncontain-
2634
This is a fascinating collection of names from the able by the leaders; here it threatens absolute uncontain-
same family: Hebrew, Greek, and Idumean. That Jose- ability.
book two 321

420 To Florus, on the one hand, awful [news] was a good report:2641 since he had re-
solved to kindle the war,2642 he gave no answer to the emissaries. 421 Agrippa, on the other Agrippa II sends
hand, being equally concerned for those who were rebelling and for those against whom cavalry under
Philip. Life 46
the war was being stirred up,2643 and wanting to preserve the Judeans for the Romans
and the temple and the mother-city for the Judeans,2644 but understanding that the distur-
bance would not be in his own interest,2645 sent 2,000 cavalry—Auranites, Bataneans, and
Trachonites2646—for the defense of the populace, under Darius2647 as cavalry commander
and Philip son of Iacimus2648 as general.2649

2641
This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the in Batanea to help keep the trouble out of Judea (see
famous neuter singular εὐαγγέλιον, normally rendered the note to “Iacimus” at Life 46 in BJP 9). Evidently, as
“gospel” in early Christian contexts, though here it lacks these areas became politically integrated in the interven-
the article that usually accompanies it in those texts ing decades the special skills were never lost, but young
(which also renders it something of a technical term of cavalrymen could be recruited from all 3 areas. See fur-
Paul’s communities). It occurs in the plural at 4.618, 656, ther the note to “Iacimus” in this section.
2647
both times in the context of adulation for Vespasian at his Although this Darius appears only here, his name
rise to imperial power, reflecting earlier use in imperial is not surprising for a descendant of a family that had
propaganda. The cognate verb is more common (twice immigrated from Babylonia: it had been the name of
in War , 9 times in Antiquities). several Persian and later Parthian kings, in particular of
2642
Greek ἐξάπτειν τὸν πόλεµον. Florus’ resolve to the king who authorized the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s
promote war is an established theme: 2.282-83, 296. At temple (Ant. 11.30-34, 63-67).
2648
2.293, 343 Josephus has Florus “fan the flames of war” Philip hardly appears by name in War (again only
and at 2.318 the procurator “re-ignites” trouble. The at 2.556), though he is in the background of the follow-
phrase used here will reappear at 2.650 of the Judeans ing story; Life (46-61, 177-80, 407-9) gives him much
who have ignited war, and Josephus will use that phrase more space, though the new information largely contra-
symmetrically in Life at 105 and 321. The phrase is not dicts War ’s account (Drexler 1925: 306-12)—in keeping
attested before Josephus and so (given this frequency) with the generally contradictory nature of the War/Antiq-
counts as distinctive, though it appears in his contem- uities-Life parallels. Philip is introduced in Ant. 17.30-31
porary Plutarch (Mor. [Vit. dec. orat.] 840a, 848b) and as a grandson of Zamaris (see note to “Trachonites” in
later authors (Appian, Bell. civ. 5.1.10). this section; cf. Laqueur 1920: 42-45) and as a man of
2643
I.e., the Romans. The client king’s difficult posi- great physical strength and moral character, whom King
tion between his people and his patrons, characteristic of Agrippa II trusted to train and lead his armies. Because
the statesman under Roman rule (see Plutarch’s Advice to Philip and his forces will escape from the insurgents in
the Statesman), was spelled out before his great speech, Jerusalem (War 2.437), leaving the Roman auxiliary gar-
at 2.337-38; see the notes there. rison to be slaughtered (2.250-54), accusations arose to
2644
See the note at 2.400, where Agrippa articulated the effect that he had betrayed the Romans to his Judean
these concerns in his speech. compatriots (Life 50, 182, 407). Although some scholars
2645
See the note to “interest either” at 2.343. By using have found those accusations plausible, in keeping with
the cognate verb here, Josephus again attributes to the their general suspicion that Josephus has minimized the
king a cold calculation concerning his personal advan- depth and breadth of anti-Roman activity among Judean
tage, in amongst his more statesman-like reflections. élites (Drexler 1925: 306-12; Cohen 1979: 160-69), the
2646
The cavalry were thus drawn from the 3 contiguous whole context of Philip’s employment, mission, and
regions E of the Golan (Gaulanitis) and Lake Kinneret, loyalty to Agrippa speak against this, and the charges
listed here from S to N (i.e., outward from Josephus’ themselves are easy to explain under the circumstances
Judean perspective). This was part of Agrippa’s territory (with J. Price 1991: 82-90).
2649
(see note to “kingdom” at 2.407) and it had a reputation Although the specific roles of these men are
for martial valor, especially in horsemanship. Trachonitis not given in their titles, we may assume that Philip as
(“rough land”) was a natural haven for bandits and had στρατηγός had higher rank and greater responsibility than
a long-standing reputation for harassing both Syria and Darius as ἱππάρχης, which was the case also where these
Judea. According to Ant. 17.23-30, near the end of his titles were more political than military: in the Achaean
life King Herod settled 600 Judean immigrants, expert League of Polybius’ time, these titles represented the
horsemen-archers from Babylonia led by one Zamaris, highest and second-highest offices, respectively.
322 book two

Leaders take (17.5) 4222650 Taking courage at these [developments], the powerful [men] together with
upper city, the chief priests2651 and as much of the throng as loved peace2652 seized* the Upper City;2653
insurgents
lower city the insurgent element had control of the Lower City2654 and the temple.2655 423 Thus, on
the one hand they were incessantly using slinging stones2656 and the far-shooters,2657 and

2650
This paragraph provides a concentrated sample the Upper by the Tyropean valley. Given this picture, it
of the balanced µέν . . . δέ contrasts favored by Greek becomes clear that in Josephus’ description the rebels
narrative generally and by Josephus’ War in particular: held Jerusalem’s E hill entirely (temple, Ophel, Lower
after establishing the two sides (422), he makes 3 such City), whereas the aristocrats and royal troops held the
comparisons before concluding. W hill. He does not clarify who controlled the large
2651
For this standard pairing in War , see the notes to amount of housing on the low SE slopes of the W hill,
“powerful [men]” at 2.239 and “chief priests” at 2.243. though we should perhaps understand this too as aristo-
2652
The phrase ἀγαπάω εἰρήνην is distinctive of War cratic territory for the present.
2655
(also at 2.650; 4.418), though it has both a Greek (Seven I.e., the massive temple platform built by King
Sages, Sent. [Mullach] p. 216 l. 45: “Love peace!”) and Herod (see 1.401-2 and the notes to “shrine” at 1.10,
a biblical (LXX Zech 8:19; cf. Philo, Conf. 41) prec- “permitted” at 2.341, and “inner temple” at 2.411),
edent. elaborately walled and colonnaded, with limited access
2653
This area of W Jerusalem was dominated by points that could be controlled with relative ease: this
the Herodian Palace along the W wall, the homes of is why it will remain as the next-to-last holdout (other
wealthier priests and other élites (some uncovered by than fortified parts of the Upper City) against the Roman
archaeologists working in the modern Jewish Quarter), assault: 6.149, 228, 238-40, 214-87.
and the Hasmonean Palace on its E ridge, looking across That the priest-led rebel faction held the temple at
the Tyropean Valley to the temple, to which it was con- this point presents famous problems because of Jose-
nected by a bridge: see the topographical notes at 2.344. phus’ later claim (Life 20-22; see discussion ad loc. in
Although the topography of the city will become impor- BJP 9) that he himself retreated into the temple com-
tant for Josephus’ descriptions of the coming internal pound, and did not emerge until Menachem was dead
conflict, as different factions monopolize different sec- (2.448)—to hold talks with the chief priests and lead-
tors (e.g., 5.11, 252; cf. 6.363, 374), he mainly keeps ing Pharisees outside the temple and try to dissuade the
his language generic as here: his audience will have rebels. Although a number of scholars have considered it
understood that cities—including Rome—normally had possible to extract from this contradiction an inadvertent
upper and lower parts, with the temple of the civic deity, confession from Josephus that he was actually part of
the main fortress, and the homes of the wealthy on the Eleazar’s priestly-rebel faction (Cohen 1979: 187, 194;
higher elevations. Goodman 1987: 159; Price 1992: 42-3 n. 130; Krieger
Josephus later describes Jerusalem in some detail, in 1994: 227-29; Vogel 1999: 69-70), the entire chronol-
preparation for the final conflicts (5.136-247). There he ogy is so thoroughly confused, by the comprehensive
mentions two hills, in addition to the gradually expanded disagreements between War and Antiquities-Life (see
temple mount: the higher one creating the Upper City, Appendix C in BJP 9), that proposed solutions to one
the other—i.e., the Ophel (see next note)—hosting on problem in isolation are difficult to credit. It is much
its slopes the congested, tiered housing of the Lower simpler to attribute these ubiquitous differences to nar-
City (5.136-137). The general plan of 1st-century Jeru- rative compression, immediate rhetorical interests and
salem may be easily viewed courtesy of the miniature variation, and poor memory. Further, incidental evidence
reconstruction at the Holyland Hotel in Jerusalem’s Bayit (2.628 cf. 451)—i.e., not a deliberately formulated apol-
ve-Gan neighborhood. ogetic statement—indicates that members of Eleazar’s
It was indeed crucial for the aristocrats to retain the group vigorously opposed Josephus in Galilee (Krieger
Upper City, which hosted their property and records. [1994: 267], e.g., must therefore speculate about a split
Once they lose it to the rebels (2.426-27), the latter within Eleazar’s faction).
2656
quickly turn to burning and looting that property. All 9 occurrences of this word in Josephus, for
2654
Although much Lower-City housing was appar- stones especially suited for firing, are in War 1-5.
2657
ently on the large, gentle slope rising to the E/SE of The word ἑκηβόλος appears not to have a precise
the Upper City, at 5.137-41 Josephus indicates that the meaning, since it sometimes refers to an instrument (Ant.
narrower Ophel hill (now connected with the City of 4.91; Aelian, Tact. 2.8; Arrian, Tact. 3.3; 15.1), some-
David) was the base of the Lower City, divided from times to a type of soldier such as a marksman (Plutarch,
book two 323

there was a continuous discharge of arrows2658 from each of the slopes;2659 on the other
hand, it was* [a time] when, making sorties by companies, they would fight at close
quarter. Whereas the insurgents2660 were conspicuous for their daring deeds,2661 the royal
troops were [conspicuous] for their expertise.2662 424 Whereas for the latter it was a contest
to take control of the temple, in particular, and drive out those who were polluting the
shrine,2663 for Eleazar and the insurgents2664 with him [it was a contest] to take also the
Upper City2665 in addition to what they already held. And so for seven days2666 there was
vast2667 slaughter on both sides, and neither would yield2668 a part that they had taken.2669
(17.6) 425 On the next day,2670 which was the Feast of Wood-carrying,2671 on which it

Luc. 28; War 3.151?). But the general sense is clear: “pollution” word-group appears 36 times. See the notes
someone or something that shoots arrows or rocks from to “pollutes” at 2.132 and “polluted” at 2.210. This is
a distance. the first clear connection of the insurgents in Jerusalem
Polybius (13.3.1-4), using this term, longed for more with the fateful pollution of the temple.
2664
ancient times when generals forswore both treachery and See the note to this key word at 1.10.
2665
battles conducted from afar, agreeing to settle matters This was not simply to acquire more territory, but
only in close-quarter combat. By Josephus’ time, how- chiefly in order to control the base of the royal relatives,
ever, the use of catapults and slings of all kinds, along chief priests, and other wealthy élites: see 2.426-28.
2666
with archers, was common (cf. Marsden 1969, 1971). This seems to imply that the parties fought through
2658
Or “projectiles” (τὰ βέλη); see the note to “pro- the sabbath, fulfilling Agrippa’s prediction at 2.392 (see
jectiles” at 2.48. note to “seventh [days]”).
2659 2667
Or simply, “the two directions, sides, quarters.” This is the adjective used substantively at 2.55;
Although it is conceivable that Josephus means an see the note to “large numbers” there.
2668
exchange between the temple mount and the Upper The use of εἴκω here and in 2.426 creates an
City, the high W walls of the temple platform make that inclusio.
2669
unlikely. Since he understands the Ophel hill S of the This is about to change, as balance between the
temple as the base of the Lower City (see notes at 2.422), sides is upset with rebel reinforcements (2.425).
2670
he seems to envisage a lobbing of projectiles from the Josephus offers a precise timeline here (cf. also
two summits, against the other. 2.430), suggesting his close personal involvement with
2660
See the note to this key word at 1.10. the events, though we cannot verify the dates.
2661 2671
See the note to “brazenness” at 2.108. This was a minor but important festival, as long
2662
Or “experience” (though one could more easily as the temple stood. As Josephus is about to indicate,
see the expertise resulting from experience). This is a Lev 6:12-13 required that the fire on the sacrificial altar
typical Josephan contrast, which he will apply to the never go out, with the priests adding wood each morning
Judeans and Romans at 5.306 using the same catego- (cf. b. Pes. 65b, Zeb. 35a). Fulfilling this commandment
ries (τόλµα vs. ἐµπειρία). Earlier authors had coupled required a periodic wood-gathering exercise. M-B (see
these traits rather than opposing them, since experience note ad loc.) observe that the Gibeonites first appear in
generates “confidence” (Thucydides 5.7.2; Polybius the role of wood-gatherers for the “house of God”—the
1.47.1; Diodorus 1.73.9), but it was natural enough to tabernacle (Josh 9:21-23). Later, Neh 10:34 (MT and
attribute them to contending forces that proved a match LXX 10:35; cf. 13:30-31) describes the post-exilic deci-
for each other because each had only one of these quali- sion to divide responsibility for wood-gathering among
ties (cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Alex. fort. virt.] 343a). Josephus ancestral houses of priests, Levites, and the people, at
frequently contrasts Judean daring with Roman disci- appointed times of the year. M. Taan. 4.5 lists 9 such
pline and order, which amounts to much the same thing times, 5 of which fall in Ab (July-August, which Jose-
(3.161, 452, 479; 4.424; 5.285, 306). phus problematically equates with Macedonian Loos; cf.
2663
One may doubt whether the royal cavalry had 2.430 and notes). Of the 5 wood-gathering days in Ab,
formulated just this motive, since it is characteristi- the cited mishnah makes Ab 15 the most important, on
cally Josephan and this collocation (µιαίνω τὸν ναόν) which not only one family but also the priests, Levites,
is not found in other writers: in Josephus it appears at and many others bring wood to the temple. The Fasting
1.39; 6.95; Ant. 7.92; 10.37; 11.297, 300. More gener- Scroll (Megillat Ta‘anit V: Ab) mentions Ab 15 alone
ally, pollution of the sacred precincts is a key theme as the time of wood-carrying, on which mourning is
of War (e.g., 4.201, 215; 5.10, 402; 6.110), where the prohibited. (One must wonder whether this reflects a
324 book two

was a custom for everyone2672 to bring chopped wood to the altar2673 so that fuel for the
fire might never fail (it continues always without being extinguished): 2674 they [Eleazar’s
group] shut out their foes from worship,2675 whereas after adding to their number2676 many
of the sicarii2677—so they called2678 the bandits who kept swords2679 under their folds2680—,
who had flowed in together with the feeble citizenry,2681 they took the operation in hand
Insurgents take with greater confidence.2682 426 The royal [troops] were inferior in both number and dar-
and burn much
of upper city
ing,2683 and yielded2684 the Upper City to those who had dislodged them.
The latter attacked and then set fire to*2685 the high priest Ananias’ residence and

perspective, no longer available to us, that saw the events see the note to “sicarii” at 2.254.
2679
Josephus describes here quite differently.) This approxi- Here Josephus uses ξίφος, which should apply
mates the date that Josephus has in view, though there to a sword of normal size, though he introduced the
is a curious gap of 1 day, since he puts this festival on sicarii by stressing that they carried “small daggers”
Ab 14 (cf. 2.430; cf. Schürer-Vermes 2.273). (2.255; see notes there) and he will re-use the diminutive
2672
If the practice of m. Taan. 4.5 was already fol- noun ξιφίδιον at the fuller explanation in Ant. 20.186.
lowed (see previous note), and something like it seems It appears, then, that this is a quick and less careful
implied by Neh 10:34-35, then Josephus is misleading reminder to the audience of what he has already said.
2680
here, though perhaps for the sake of simplicity. Different I.e., the lower folds of tunics or robes (cf. 2.255),
groups brought wood on different days. It may be fair where a dagger could be unobtrusively concealed.
2681
to say that “everyone” (or their representatives) brought Although ἀσθενής λαός could be understood as
wood at one of the appointed times, or to present the the infirm population, there is no connection between the
main day in Ab a day for everyone. sick and wood-collection for the altar, and the parallel at
2673
This was the great altar that stood before the Holy 6.259 (λαὸς ἀσθενὴς καὶ ἄνοπλος)—to which this may
Place, on which animals of various kinds were sacrificed be a symmetrical counterpart, since the phrase appears
each day (Exod 20:24; 27:1). According to War 5.225 it only in these places in Josephus—settles the matter: an
was a large square structure nearly 7 m (22.5 ft) high. overwhelmed and helpless people (in the latter passage
The Mishnah (Mid. 3.1-4) gives smaller dimensions. facing the invading legions) was unable to prevent the
2674
So Lev 6:12-13; see note to “Wood-carrying.” cut-throats from entering the temple along with them as
This explanation again assumes that Josephus’ (Roman) the gates were opened. The phrasing seems exclusively
audience has no knowledge of biblical prescriptions or biblical and early Christian, and given Josephus’ general
practices in the Jerusalem temple. This is the only occur- interest in Jeremiah (cf. Cohen 1982a) the parallel at
rence of the adjective ἄσβεστον (cf. English “asbestos”) LXX Jer 6:21 might be particularly germane. The term
in Josephus. λαός is relatively rare in War (39 occurrences, against
2675
This exclusion begins to fulfill the predicition of 233 in Antiquities) and is a term of implicit respect
the elders at 2.416. for the lay population; see the note to “citizenry” at
2676
Or “taking in.” By using προσλαµβάνω here and 2.1.
2682
again at 2.427 (of large numbers of debtors), Josephus Josephus has used precisely the same phrase
draws a picture according to which a priestly coterie (θαρραλεώτερον ἥπτοντο τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως) at 1.651,
around Eleazar, the most determined core of the insur- with the same Attic spelling of the adjective, as always
gency (2.409-10), makes calculating alliances with oth- in War (also 3.155; 4.10, 120; and Ant. 13.197; 14.442),
ers to expand their numbers—a familiar tactic in modern though he uses the koine form at Ant. 2.341; 5.65;
war and insurgency. First they admit these generally vio- 13.407; Apion 1.99. Since these are the only two attested
lent men, with no known political principle (see the note instances of the phrase in ancient literature, the consis-
to “sicarii” at 2.255); soon they contrive to swell their tency of the author’s hand (irrespective of varying source
support with the ranks of debtors seeking relief. See the material) seems evident.
2683
note to “number” at 2.427. They had always lacked, relatively, in daring
2677
See the note at 2.254. As there, Josephus trans- (2.423); now they are outmatched in number, which
literates a Latin term that he expects his audience to presumably neutralizes their superior discipline and
recognize (i.e., he does not need to explain that a sica expertise.
2684
is a dagger), while briefly reminding them why these Josephus completes the inclusio with εἴκω begun
people were called this. at 2.425.
2678 2685
It is a puzzle, and Josephus nowhere explains, See the note at 2.49.
who called these Judean “knife-men” by this Latin name;
book two 325

the royal properties of Agrippa and Bernice. 427 After that, they carried the fire to the
archives,2686 hurrying to obliterate the contracts of those who had lent out money2687 and to
cut off the collection of the debts, so that they might add to their number2688 the horde of
those who had received assistance2689 and raise up with impunity the deprived against the
well-heeled.2690 After those at the record-office2691 had fled, they lit the fire.2692 428 When
they had incinerated2693 the sinews of the city,2694 they advanced against their adversaries.
At this, some of the powerful [men] and chief priests2695 tried to escape notice by drop-
ping down into the tunnels,2696 429 whereas others took refuge rather up in the palace,2697

2686 2689
Although τὰ ἀρχεῖα can refer to several kinds We should not assume that these debtors were the
of public buildings, the context here indicates offices of utterly destitute, who probably would not have qualified
public records, which we would expect to find around for loans. Loans were often taken for the purpose of
the agora of the Upper City (see “Market” at 2.305); beginning or expanding a small-business venture (see
cf. 7.55-61 for comparable sites in Antioch, also burned the papyri in the note to “money” at 2.427); these people
down by debtors who similarly hoped to be relieved of might well have included small traders, artisans, and
their obligations; also Life 38 for Galilee. Thus, Josephus shop-keepers.
2690
is describing ordinary human behavior in such cases, not The translation tries to capture Josephus’ contrast
suggesting a particular class-based motive for this war between ἀπόροι and εὐπόροι (cf. Aristotle Pol. 1279b:
(pace Kreissig 1969, 1970; Faulkner 2004). oligarchy functions in the interest of the well-heeled,
2687
Egyptian papyri preserve a number of contracts democracy in the interest of the deprived or money-
from this time, between individuals and groups. They less).
2691
typically specify the period of the loan (often a year or The word γραµµατοφυλακεῖον appears only here
less), the rate of interest (often reaching 12% annually), and at Ant. 8.55 in Josephus; it is unattested before his
the form of the loan and its repayment (type of coin time, but appears in his contemporary Plutarch (Mor.
and/or payment in kind), guarantees for repayment and [Cur.] 520b) and in the 2nd-century Soranus (Vit. Hipp.
consequences of default, and clear identification of the 3, 4).
2692
persons involved (e.g., CPJ 20, 23, 25, 26, 149, 411, Though occasionally attested before his time
(Homer, Il. 12.441; Euripides, Troi. 1262; Herodotus
413, 414, 488). In Rome the same arrangements would
8.33; Thucydides 4.115.2; Polybius 1.48.8), the phrase
be handled by a stipulatio (cf. Johnston 1999: 84-86; in
ἐνίηµι (τὸ) πῦρ is characteristic of Josephus: he uses it
general Andreau 1999).
2688 15 times, 9 of these in War 1-7.
See the note to this verb at 2.425. Josephus pres- 2693
See the note at 2.58.
ents the determined insurgent core as manipulating the 2694
The phrase νεῦρα τῆς πόλεως may have been a
populace with predictable demagogic devices to secure
rhetorical cliché: cf. the 4th-century BCE orator Demades
their support. Although economic factors might have
(Frag. 124) and Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch (Phil.
been significant in the origin of the war (as class strug- 16.9; cf. Libanius, Decl. 17.1.83).
gle: so Kreissig 1969, 1970; Faulkner 2004), that is not 2695
For this standard pairing in War , see the notes to
how Josephus presents matters, and this evidence does “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and “chief priests” at 2.243.
not have the straightforward historical value sometimes 2696
For a description of such multi-function under-
placed upon it—e.g., by Brunt (1990: 285): “In 66 revo- ground passages (ὑπόνοµοι) in coastal Caesarea, see Ant.
lutionaries at Jerusalem burned down the record office 15.340. In War Jerusalem’s tunnels have figured in the
. . . . Thus they did not rely solely on men’s religious resistance to Herod’s capture of Jerusalem (1.350) and
sentiments.” In the same place Brunt seems to misread they will become important, in a symmetrical reversal of
Josephus at 7.260, as if he were describing class struggle the present passage, as final hideouts of the chief rebel
as a disease plaguing Judea from 6 CE. (The disease, leaders in the Upper City fleeing the Roman occupation
as always [cf. 1.4], must be civil strife, of which what (6.370, 429, 433; 7.26, 35, 215)—at 6.402 with the same
follows are only examples. Josephus has just empha- verb (καταδύω) and noun. Underground passages also
sized [7.256-58] that the people were deceived into join- appear as hiding places at Iotapata (2.336) and Masada
ing the revolt by its leaders. They did not pursue it—in (399, 404). If we consider that Josephus’ family must
Josephus—for economic reasons.) Rather, Josephus con- have resided in the Upper City (cf. 5.533, 544), if they
structs this as a clever ploy by the younger élite rebels were present at this time it is interesting to ponder where
to involve the oppressed masses—present in every part they—and he—went, if indeed he was not among the
of the empire—by burning their debt records. young rebel priests.
326 book two

with the royal [troops], and shut the gates; with them were the high priest Ananias,2698 his
brother Ezekias,2699 and those who had undertaken the mission to Agrippa.2700
At that point, then, having satisfied themselves both with their victory and with what
had been set on fire, they [the rebels] took a rest.
Lous 15, rebels (17.7) 430 On the next day,2701 which was the fifteenth of the month Lous,2702 they
attack Antonia, rushed against the Antonia;2703 after besieging the guards within for two days, they cap-
besiege troops
in palace tured and slaughtered them, and set the fortress on fire. 431 Then they changed direction
for the palace, into which the royal [troops] had escaped. After dividing themselves into
four units,2704 they began attempts on the walls. Although none of those inside had the
courage for a breakout,2705 because of the horde of those ranged against them, by distrib-
uting themselves along the parapets and the towers they were able to hit those who were
approaching,2706 and large numbers2707 of the bandits2708 were falling beneath the walls.
432 Neither by night nor by day did the engagement let up, with the insurgents2709 figuring
that those inside would call it off for lack of food, whereas those inside [were figuring]
that the ones who were besieging them [would call it off] for weariness.2710
Menachem (17.8) 433 At this time a certain Manaem, son of Ioudas2711—the one called the
son of Judas,
armed, arrives
in Jerusalem to
direct siege

2705
It is remarkable that the only other attestations of this Or simply “for a bolt, running away.” Greek
phrase in literature, though both relevant, come from the ἐκδροµή is characteristic of War 2-7, which host 19 of
2nd cent. CE: Appian speaking of the younger Marius, its 20 occurrences in Josephus (this is the first). The
who dropped into a tunnel and took his own life [Bell. word is rarely attested before Josephus ([Hippocrates],
civ. 1.10.94]; Polyaenus describing how Lachares hid in Sem. 57; Thucydides 4.127.2; Xenophon, Hell. 3.2.4;
tunnels for several days after the capture of Thebes, until Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 2.1.3; Onasander 41.1), but
he could escape to Delphi. appears routinely from his time onward (e.g., in Plutarch
2697
The Herodian palace, occupying the W side of [11 times], Arrian, Polyaenus, Aristides, Appian, Cassius
the Upper City was the highest and best fortified site in Dio). This is another example of his apparently fashion-
that area; it had been used as a residence by the procura- able language.
2706
tors when they visited Jerusalem. See the note to “royal This tactical situation closely resembles that of
grounds” at 2.301. 2.329 (the same verb is used), where the inferior force
2698
See the notes at 2.243, 409. has the advantage of protected elevation to inflict seri-
2699
The name of the Judahite king Hezekiah (‫)חזקיה‬ ous damage.
2707
is the least frequently attested male name of the 18 listed See the note to this phrase at 2.55.
2708
by Hachlili 2005: 200. This brother of the former high Here is a clear example of the rhetorical use of
priest appears in Josephus only here and at the mention “bandit” (cf. 1.10). As far as the audience knows, these
of his death below (2.441). bandits might include nameless militants keen on war
2700
The mission was led by the brothers Costobar and (2.408, though they have gone to Masada), the priestly
Saul with their relative Antipas (2.418). core led by Eleazar (2.409-10), some violent men admit-
2701
See the note at 2.425. ted to their ranks (2.425), and especially the large num-
2702
Given Josephus’ equation of Macedonian Lous bers of the relatively poor, recently relieved of their debts
with Judean Ab (Ant. 4.84; see the note to “Artemisius” (2.427).
2709
at 2.284): July-August. See the note to this key term at 1.10.
2703 2710
This was the main base of the auxiliary garrison This sentence is another classically balanced
kept in Jerusalem; see the note at 2.328. It implies a assessment, sharing a verb between µέν . . . δέ clauses,
considerable growth in the rebels’ strength that, whereas of the sort that fills 2.422-24; the motives in question
an outraged mob had only been able to cut off access are stock attributions (could those in the Herodian pal-
to the fortress (2.330-31), they are now in a position to ace really exhaust their food supply within such a short
besiege and capture it in an astonishingly short period. period?) with little specific historical value.
2711
Josephus’ matter-of-fact description here leaves us in the See the notes on Judas, who led a rebellion at
dark as to how this feat was accomplished. the introduction of direct Roman rule in 6 CE, at 2.118.
2704
Presumably, for the 4 walls, though this would The following reminder, like that concerning the sicarii
imply a truly large force. (2.425), shows Josephus’ constant attention to his audi-
book two 327

Galilean,2712 a most formidable sophist2713 who had berated the Judeans back in the time
of Quirinius2714 because they were subjecting themselves to the Romans after God2715—
took his acquaintances2716 and withdrew to Masada.2717 434 There, after he broke open
the armory of King Herod2718 and fully armed the different bandits2719 as well as the
commoners,2720 making use of these spear-bearers2721 he returned* to Hierosolyma quite
like a king2722 and, after becoming the supreme commander of the civil strife,2723 he began
organizing the siege.
435 But there was a shortage of [suitable] implements,2724 and there was no point in

ence’s knowledge base. If this Menachem (‫—מנחם‬the 411)—among Judeans, Samarians, or Pharisees—these
11th most frequently attested male name in the period same words (lit. “those who are known”) can also mean,
[Hachlili 2005: 200], though rarely found otherwise in where the context requires it (e.g., 1.78, 649), one’s own
Josephus: Ant. 15.373-78) was indeed Judas’ son, then friends or acquaintances.
2717
two other sons who lost their lives in the mid-40s to a The last we heard (2.408; see note there), name-
governor’s justice (Ant. 20.102), Jacob and Simon, must less Judean warmongers had made a rush on Masada
have been his brothers; and he must have been relatively and somehow seized it from the Roman garrison, install-
old for this kind of activity 20 years hence. Indeed, a ing their own guards. This group apparently comprised
man who seems to be his nephew (Eleazar son of Ya‘ir; sicarii led by Manaem’s relative Eleazar son of Ya‘ir; see
see 2.447 and notes) is active as a vigorous leader at the note to “war in motion” there. The verb ἀναχωρέω
the same time as he. Menachem appears only briefly in might mean that he “went back” to Masada (if, e.g., his
War (until 2.441) and in Life (21 [also as the head of group had gone there at 2.408, but the audience would
“bandits”], 46-47). have no way of knowing this). The normal meaning in
2712 military contexts was simply that of withdrawal.
“The one called” is elaborated in Ant. 18.4, 23
2718
[cf. 20.102], according to which Judas was actually from The language in this episode is suspiciously simi-
Gamala in the Golan, though he was known as the “Gali- lar to that used of the bandit Ezekias in the revolt of 4
lean.” BCE (2.56): he also broke open the armory (here τοῦ
2713
The pejorative label “sophist” is applied to Judas βασιλέως ὁπλοθήκην ἀναρρήξας; there ἀναρρήγνυσιν
at 2.118 (see the note there), and 7.253 will remind τὰς βασιλικὰς ὁπλοθήκας) of King Herod (at Sep-
the audience of his persuasive abilities. The superla- phoris), armed his followers (here καθοπλίσας; there
tive adjective δεινότατος might well, in the context of ὁπλίσας), and with this strong bodyguard began to
sophistry, refer to his ability in the “forceful” rhetori- behave as a king. We must apparently assume either
cal style (Demetrius, Eloc. esp. 240-59; Lausberg 1998: that Menachem’s group were on friendly terms with the
421-22, 475). Otherwise, the adjective occupies roughly group that had recently taken Masada from the Romans
the space of French terrible, moving between English (2.408) or that they are the same group.
2719
“awful” and “awesome” (see the notes at Life 100, 101 See the note at 2.431.
2720
in BJP 9). Bandits and commoners are similarly contrasted
2714 at 2.253. Since they are all fully armed, the distinction
P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. ord. 12 BCE, CIL VI
17130) was appointed legatus Augusti pro praetore for is not entirely clear; we must assume that at least to
Syria in 6 CE. Since this passage and 7.253 (also dating Josephus’ mind the “bandits” had greater experience and/
Judas to Quirinius’ arrival in Syria) show that Josephus or determination.
2721
knows about the legate, and Ant. 17.355; 18.1-2, 26, 29; See note to this word at 2.262. Menachem has
20.102 gives him a famous and critical role in Judean equipped himself with such an intimidating bodyguard,
affairs at this time (cf. Luke 2:2), it is strange indeed that typical of the tyrant-king, that he has no trouble impos-
Josephus did not mention him when he described Judea’s ing himself as leader of the rebellion in Jerusalem.
2722
incorporation into the empire and Judas’ revolt (2.117); Cf. 2.61 for another comparison of a rebel leader
see the notes to “province” and “procurator” there. with a king, on the basis of his having surrounded him-
2715 self with compliant “generals” and fighters.
The phrase is taken over from 2.118, which Jose-
2723
phus may have before him: “[if they were going to] toler- See the notes to this key word (στάσις) at 1.10
ate mortal masters after God.” and esp. 2.418.
2716 2724
Although Josephus uses the same phrase (οἱ Such machines and instruments would greatly
γνώριµοι) that has appeared in bk. 2 absolutely for “the assist in filling moats, undermining walls, and applying
notables” (2.178, 193, 233, 240, 270, 318, 322, 410, large battering rams—all with the crucial element of
328 book two

digging under the wall in the open, because they were also being hit by projectiles2725
from above;2726 so they dug out a tunnel to one of the towers from far away, and propped
it up.2727 Then, after setting on fire the supporting woodwork, they moved away. 436 When
the foundations2728 had burned down, the tower was suddenly shaken apart;* but then a
different wall that had been rebuilt from the inside showed through.2729 (Having perceived
their plot beforehand, and given that the tower was disturbed so quickly as it was being
Besieged troops undermined, they [the besieged] had prepared a second barrier for themselves.) 437 At
appeal for truce this there was panic amongst those who had unexpectedly seen [the wall]—who had been
convinced that they were already in control.
Now those inside kept sending [word] to both Manaem and the main leaders of the civil
strife,2730 asking to depart under the protection of a truce;2731 this being granted only to the
royal [troops] and the locals,2732 they began coming out. 438 Disheartenment seized the
Romans, being the only ones left behind. For they were unable to dislodge such a great
horde and, as for the scandal of asking for a pledge2733 [of safety], they considered2734
that even if it were to be given they should not trust it.2735 439 So they abandoned their
camp, since it was easy to capture, and retreated to the royal towers: the one called the
Hippicus and Phasael and Mariamme.2736 440 Manaem’s group burst into [the place] that

2730
protection for the soldiers using them, in the form of See the note to this key word (στάσις) at 2.418.
2731
shields and panels (cf. Vitruvius, De arch. 10.13-15); this All 3 occurrences of the adjective ὑπόσπονδος
protection near the walls is especially what Menachem in War come in this part of bk. 2; all have to do with
lacks. The Romans had mastered the production of all the (ostensibly) safe departure of a Roman or royal gar-
such devices, and this passage in part looks ahead to rison in the face of siege by Judean irregulars; the next
2.546, 553, when the dread prospect that their engines occurrence directly recalls this one, and the last is con-
will fall into Judean hands is realized in the rout of Ces- nected by the garrison’s understandable concern for their
tius. security (2.450; cf. 2.486).
2732
2725
See the note at 2.48. Or natives (ἐπιχώριοι): presumably, the Judean
2726
The Romans, by contrast, had both machines to soldiers in contrast to the Syrian and Samarian soldiers
protect them (see note to “implements” in this section) of the Roman auxiliaries.
2733
and a famous protective drill called the testudo, for ad Lit. “right hands.”
2734
Josephus makes a play on the verb ὑπολαµβάνω
hoc protection from flying objects (see 2.537).
2727 in this sentence, using it in two distinct senses (also
The compound verb ἀνακρηµνίζω is unattested
“seized”).
outside this passage in ancient Greek literature. Other 2735
Presumably, since they have already asked and
writers almost always use the κατα- prefix, in keeping the insurgents have made clear their intention to isolate
with the root sense of throwing or hurling down; it is not the “Romans.” The narrator’s insight into the auxiliary
surprising, therefore, that the form with ἀνα- does not garrison’s thinking anticipates the outcome of the story
otherwise appear. (For the unprefixed form, which is also (2.450-53): the Judean rebels will indeed, fatefully, break
rare, see the note to “flinging themselves” at 2.49.) their pledge of security.
2728
This is the only occurrence of στήριγµα in Jose- 2736
These 3 mighty towers will be the only ones left
phus. Before his time it is rarely attested (Euripides, Iph. by Titus (7.2-3), as a demonstration of what Roman man-
aul. 617; Trag. adesp., frag. 427 [Nauck]; Apion, Frag. liness had overcome in capturing Jerusalem; cf. 1.418;
Hom. 74.237.16 [Ludwich]) outside the LXX, which has 5.134, 144, 147, 161-69 [detailed description]; Ant.
it some 18 times (including the Maccabean literature and 17.257. Hippicus was a 12 m (37 ft) square structure
Tobit) and Philo (Somn. 158). The word is found 4 times that rose to about 37 m (120 ft), though only the lower
in Plutarch, dozens of times in Galen and later. 14 m (45 ft) was solid cut stone (the upper sections com-
2729
This disheartening discovery of a second wall, prising a water reservoir, decorative vault, and turrets
when attackers had been on the verge of exuberant with parapets). Phasael was a solid cube of 18 m (60 ft)
celebration at destroying the main one, anticipates an topped by high colonnades with an inner tower contain-
important episode (prompting a speech by Titus) in the ing luxurious apartments; the whole reached some 41 m
later Roman assault on Jerusalem: 6.23-32. (135 ft). Whereas these reached the approximate height
book two 329

the soldiers had evacuated, and disposed of2737 all those they apprehended, who had not
been far enough ahead to run clear. They also plundered the baggage and set fire to the
camp. These things were done on the sixth of the month Gorpiaeus.2738
(17.9) 441 On the following day,2739 the high priest Ananias,2740 trying to hide near the High Priest
canal2741 of the royal palace, was captured* and done away with* by the bandits,2742 along Ananias found
and executed
with his brother Ezekias.2743 The insurgents,2744 having now surrounded2745 the towers, kept
a close watch so that none of the soldiers might escape. 442 Both the reduction of the
secure places and the death of the high priest Ananias deluded Manaem to the point of
savagery: thinking that he had no rival in affairs, he was an unbearable tyrant.2746
443 But Eleazar’s group2747 rose up against* him [Manaem]. They passed word to one Eleazar’s
another that after rebelling from the Romans out of a desire for freedom2748 they must not faction opposes
Menachem’s
throw this away to a domestic populace2749 and tolerate a master who, even if he were to
do nothing violent, was altogether lower than they themselves.2750 Even if it were neces-
sary for someone to be directing all affairs, this would be suited to anyone before him. So
they got themselves together* and made an attempt on him in the temple. 444 For he had
gone up* to make obeisance,2751 an imposing [figure]2752 decked out in royal clothing2753

of modern 12-story buildings, Mariamme was signifi- δήµῳ (assembled populace, citizenry, democratic body)
cantly smaller, though still imposing: it had a solid cube of all the MSS (cf. Lat. populari suo, with M-B: “Mann
of 9.1 m (30 ft) as its base, with its extremely luxuri- aus dem Volk”), might have to do with the usually posi-
ous apartments and parapets reaching 25.1 m (82.5 ft) tive sense of δῆμος in Josephus, in contrast to his much
in total. It is no surprise that the garrison fled to these more common and disparaging “rabble, mob, horde”
massive towers as a last refuge. (πλῆθος). But here the reading in the MSS yields a toler-
2737
Otherwise often translated “destroy(ed)”; see the able sense: the young priests have initiated the movement
note at 2.11. to rebellion by halting the sacrifices. Now a populist
2738
See the note to “Artemisius” at 2.284: in Josephus’ tyrant figure has come along and dominated their efforts
scheme this equates to Elul 6, in August-September. by overwhelming force. The priestly group has decided
2739
Thus: Gorpiaeus (Elul) 7. that their freedom (in Roman times, the call for “free-
2740
See the notes at 2.243, 409; recently mentioned dom” often came from a threatened aristocracy) would
at 2.429. be curtailed at least as much now by Menachem and his
2741
At 5.180-81 Josephus will describe the lush gar- uppity commoners as it had been by Rome. Note the
dens of Herod’s palace, drawing attention to the deep
distinct reference to class later in the sentence.
canals that bordered the picturesque walkways, with 2750
In making the point that asserting freedom from
cloisters and groves all around.
2742
Rome and its abusive governors makes them unwilling
See the note to this programmatic term at 2.56.
2743 to tolerate domestic tyrants, the young priests around
See the note at 2.429, his only other appearance
Eleazar anticipate crucial programmatic statements in
in Josephus.
2744 the heart of the work: 4.177-78, 394. See the note to
See the note to this key word at 1.10.
2745
Following Niese (with Thackeray and M-B), after “slavery” at 2.209.
2751
Naber, in reading περισχόντες, as suggested by Latin See the notes to this phrase at 2.341, 360.
2752
circumsidentes, rather than ἐπισχόντες (“standing facing Or “a pompous figure”; MSS PA have the adver-
[the towers]”) with the MSS. Either is possible. bial form, though the adjective σοβαρός works well
2746
The closest precedent is “unbearable tyranny” in enough here and is found in the bulk of MSS and the
Dionysius, Ant. rom. 4.70.2. On “tyrants” as a key cat- Latin translation. The adjective also sets up the con-
egory in War see the note at 1.10. trast with the humiliated condition (ταπεινῶς) in which
2747
This is the group with a priestly core, led by the Manaem would soon be found, trying to evade capture
temple commandant (2.409-10), as the following narra- (2.448); that contrast is also found at 6.395—the 2nd of
tive assumes. only 4 occurrences of σοβαρός in Josephus. Both pas-
2748
See the notes to “slavery” at 2.209 and “freedom” sages thus reflect the tragic and Polybian “reversal of for-
at 2.259—bedrock themes of War . tune” ([τυχῆς] µεταβολή) motif, specifically mentioned
2749
Holwerda’s emendation to δηµίῳ (“executioner”— at 6.395 (cf. 1.615), that runs through War; see the note
so Niese, Thackeray, Vitucci, Pelletier), rather than the to “upheaval” at 1.5.
330 book two

and drawing after him his armed devotees.2754 445 As Eleazar’s group2755 rushed against
him, the rest of the populace also, because of their fury, grabbed stones and kept hitting
the sophist,2756 figuring that if this [fellow] were eliminated2757 they would divert the entire
civil strife.2758 446 Manaem’s group held out for a while,2759 but when they saw that the
whole populace had rushed against them, they ran in whichever direction each one could
Menachem break through. Of those who had been apprehended there was a slaughter; for those who
killed; followers
retreat to
were concealing themselves, a search.2760
Masada 447 A few came through safely after running off by stealth to Masada;2761 with them

2753
The connection between tyrants (2.442 on Ma- ers, we might understand this as a metonymy for the
naem, 2.447 on his nephew Eleazar) and kings is close, person’s regime (being brought to an end), though in
in ancient thinking generally and in Josephus, espe- several cases—e.g., here and at 2.593—the hoped- for
cially in War 2: 2.60-61, 104, and 2.1-111 as a block “dissolution” is immediate and physical, at least in part
(on Archelaus and the royal pretenders in Judea). See a euphemism for killing.
2758
also the note to “tyrants” at 1.10. After finishing the story (with Menachem’s death),
2754
This is the first appearance of ζηλωτής, a word Josephus will reiterate this important point at 2.449.
2759
that will occur 55 times in War, though only 4 other The phrase πρὸς ὀλίγον here is a surprisingly
times in Josephus’ works combined. Ordinarily meaning distinctive trait of Josephus’ style: he uses it 24 times,
“imitator, devoted disciple” (as 2.564; Ant. 12.71; Life throughout War 1-6, Antiquities, and Life. Before his time,
11), in War it takes on a technical meaning, especially in it appears rarely and not in the main historical authors
bk. 4, which hosts most of its occurrences, for a named who provide his models (Herodotus, Thucydides, Poly-
group with a clear leadership: “those called Zealots” bius, Diodorus, Strabo); Dionysius has it twice (4.62.1;
(2.651; 4.197, 216, 224; 5.3, 5, 7; 7.268) will be respon- 5.34.4), but both times qualifying καιρόν. Some such
sible with the Idumeans for the fateful murder of the qualification is normal (commonly χρόνον) also in the
chief priests Ananus and Jesus. Since the non-technical heaviest user of the phrase before Josephus, Philo, who
meaning is present in Josephus, and possibly holds also has it 15 times (9 qualifying one of these nouns). Jose-
for the next occurrence (2.564), whereas Josephus will phus, by contrast, uses the phrase absolutely in 23 of his
pointedly introduce the group name at 2.651, it seems 24 cases (except Ant. 13.224). Plutarch has the phrase
best to understand this passage according to that non- once only (Mor. [Cons. Apoll.] 116a), Dio Chrysostom
technical usage. Further, it seems that the Zealots (who 6 times. We expect either ὀλίγον alone, with an adver-
remained in Jerusalem) were distinct from the followers bial function, or ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον, which is more common
of Eleazar and Manaem (who went to Masada), and that (found in Herodotus, Polybius, Diodorus, and Strabo,
to label the latter group Zealots (in the group sense) and 4 times in Josephus). The parallel construction at
would introduce an unnecessary complication into the 2.357 (πρὸς µοῖραν ὀλίγην, likewise in a martial con-
understanding of Josephus’ narrative. Cf. Zeitlin 1965, text) raises the possibility that Josephus means “held out
1967; Smith 1971; Black 1974; Hengel 1989: passim against a small group [but could not withstand the entire
and 380-404. populace].” Yet the other 23 examples of the phrase show
2755
See the note at 2.443: those with Eleazar son of that it has to do with time.
2760
Ya‘ir. The pair “search and slaughter” (ἔρευνα, φόνος)
2756
This label can only remind the audience of is distinctively Josephan; it reappears at 4.560; Ant.
Manaem’s lineage: he has recently been introduced as the 19.126 (a passage on Caligula’s death, widely thought
son of the sophist Judas (2.433; cf. 2.118 and note). to have been borrowed from Roman sources).
2757 2761
Or “brought down, overthrown, put out of the According to 7.399-400, the refugees on Masada
way”; possibly “liquidated, terminated, neutralized.” led by Eleazar numbered 967 (960 of whom died there),
Although Josephus and other ancient authors normally including women and children. If that number were accu-
use καταλύω with respect to the termination or disso- rate and if the males had a wife and 2 or more chil-
lution of a government, power, system, law, or tradition dren (though 1 surviving woman had 5 children: 7.399),
(1.19, 34; 2.393, 449, 531; 4.258, 348; Ant. 2.348; 3.42; the number of fighters might have been 200 or fewer.
4.310; 10.30, 74, 11.335; 12.1, 364; 13.408; 15.281; Although Josephus does not mention their taking wives
17.246; 20.81), here and at 2.593 in War 2 (also 1.160, and children at this point, that was normal and necessary
210, 214, 232; 4.394, 493, 573) he employs it of a practice in situations of lethal civil conflict, in which
human being. Since all the men in question are lead- vulnerable family members became targets or hostages.
book two 331

was Eleazar son of Yair, connected to Manaem by ancestry,2762 who afterwards became
the tyrant2763 of Masada.2764 448 After capturing alive Manaem himself—he had taken
refuge in the so-called Ophlas2765 and was lying there humiliatingly2766 concealed2767—
they dragged him out into the open and, after tormenting him with many tortures,2768 did
away with him, likewise also the commanders under him and the tyrant’s most significant
underling,2769 Apsalom.2770
(17.10) 449 So the populace indeed collaborated in these [matters], as I was saying,2771
hoping for some repair2772 of the entire civil strife;2773 yet it was those who were keen
not to terminate the war but to wage war the more fearlessly2774 who had done away with
Manaem.
450 Indeed, while the populace repeatedly appealed for the raising of the siege from the
soldiers,2775 they [Eleazar’s group] applied themselves yet more harshly until Metilius’2776

2762
At 7.253 Eleazar will be reintroduced as a ily admit even of his enemies (cf. 2.628; Life 189-92),
descendant (ἀπόγονος) of the sophist Judas the Gali- though it might mean simply that he was a conspicuous
lean (2.118), just as Manaem has been described as that lieutenant to Manaem.
2770
Judas’ son (2.433). We cannot assume that Josephus This character appears only here in Josephus, who
clearly understood the family relationships in question. If suitably introduces him.
2771
he did, the simplest reconstruction would have Manaem Since this paragraph stresses the point already
and Ya‘ir as brothers, both sons of Judas (along with made before Josephus finished the story of Manaem’s
Jacob [James] and Simon, killed in the 40s according death (2.445), he must have considered it important: the
to Ant. 20.102), in which case Eleazar b. Ya‘ir would be ostensible participation of the entire populace at this
Manaem’s nephew. point was not a sign of massive involvement in the civil
2763
See the note to “tyrants” at 1.10. war, but rather the attempt of the people to bring a quick
2764
Josephus clearly anticipates the Masada story of end to the civil strife. Such readings of the popular mind
bk. 7 (7.253, 275-97, 320-88), showing again that the are notoriously perilous, and the historian must ask how
final volume must have been part of his original plan Josephus could know this.
2772
while writing even this part of War (see Introduction). See the note to “redress” at 2.449.
2765
The Ophel (‫ )האפל‬was the small plateau just S of 2773
See the note to this key word at 1.10.
2774
the temple compound on the E spur of Jerusalem, lead- At 2.445 those who have done away with Manaem
ing up from the City of David, where in biblical times are identified as the group around Eleazar son of Anan-
the temple attendants had lived (Neh 3:26-27; 11:21; 2 ias, who had begun the war with a determined stance by
Chron 27:3; 33:14). Josephus will mention it again in refusing to accept foreign sacrifice, against the strong
his descriptions of Jerusalem and the final Roman attack admonitions of more senior leaders (2.409-10); cf. also
(5.145, 254; 6.354). This was for Josephus the base of 2.450.
2775
the Lower City (see note to “Lower City” at 2.422). Greek τοῦ δήµου τοῖς στρατιώταις ἀνεῖναι τὴν
2766
See the note to “imposing [figure],” to which this πολιορκίαν παρακαλοῦντος presents a number of diffi-
is the contrast (a reversal of fortune), at 2.444. culties. Although παρακαλέω takes an accusative object,
2767
This is the only occurrence of ὑπολανθάνω in Thackeray reads the dative “soldiers” as object of the
Josephus. verb, in keeping with the expected logic of the sentence:
2768
Greek πολλαῖς αἰκισάµενοι βασάνοις. The “the civilians urgently entreated the [sc. Judean] soldiers
closely related roots of the participle and noun seldom to abandon the siege.” But this would create a problem
occur together in non-Judean authors (Dionysius, Ant. in addition to that of case, for στρατιώται appears more
rom. 3.73.4; 5.51.3, 77.6; 6.7.3; Plutarch, Phil. 21.2), than 300 times in Josephus, and dozens of times in War
though they are commonly juxtaposed in the Hasmonean 2, but otherwise indicates members of a regular, trained
literature (2 Macc 7.13; 4 Macc 6.9; 7.2; 11.1; 12.13; force. Only from 2.578 will he begin to use it of Judean
13.27; 14.1; 15.9), Philo (Abr. 104; Spec. 2.94; Prob. forces, because they have then undergone proper training
25; Flacc. 84, 96), and Josephus (also War 3.321; 4.329; (cf. 2.620, 634, 645). At the same time, the populace
5.450; Ant. 10.115; 12.255; 13.5; 16.389). plainly cannot be appealing to the trapped Roman gar-
2769
See the note to this noun at 2.41. The adjective rison, to raise the siege. This problem no doubt explains
ἐπισηµότατος might suggest that Absalom was of a the confusion in MS C and the correction offered in V:
distinguished family, something that Josephus can eas- στασιασταῖς (which would solve the logical, but not the
332 book two

group—this man was the prefect2777 of the Romans—could hold out no longer. They sent
word* to Eleazar’s group, asking only for their lives, under the protection of a truce,2778
Oath violated, and saying that they would surrender their weapons2779 and the rest of their stuff. 451 The
Roman garrison others indeed seized on this plea and sent up2780 to them Gorion son of Nicomedes,2781
killed
as well as Ananias Sadouki2782 and Ioudas son of Ionathes,2783 to give them the pledge2784
and also oaths.2785

grammatical, problem); cf. Drexler’s puzzlement (1925: back” in view of the response here.
2781
279). The father’s name is Greek, recalling the kings of
Both problems may be (imperfectly) solved if we Bithynia (and the city of Nicomedia founded by Nico-
understand the dative to refer to the interest of the medes I in the mid-3rd cent. BCE), whereas the son’s
besieged soldiers. Pelletier offers that the populace is Hebrew. Latin War changes the father’s Greek name
pleaded before [or in sight of] the soldiers (auprès des to Nicodemus (possibly under the influence of John
militaires) for an end to the siege. M-B propose that 3:1-9; 7:50; 19:39). That form creates a curious parallel
the people demanded from the rebels that they raise the with rabbinic literature, which several times mentions a
siege of the soldiers (man möchte die Belagerung der wealthy man of Jerusalem in this period named Nakdi-
römischen Soldaten aufheben); Whiston similarly, “that mon ben Gorion (possibly the father of this Gorion): b.
they would stop besieging the soldiers.” Although these Ketub. 65a-b, 66b, 67a; Git. 56a; Avod. Zar. 25a; for
convey the general sense, as translations they force the other Gorions see m. Shab. 1.4; Qid. 4.14; b. Bab. Mez.
language. Smyth notes (§1483), however, that the dative 86b; Shab. 33b. The son’s name would live on, not only
may be used with verbs of “depriving, warding off, and among these rabbis but famously with modern Israel’s
the like”—as here—to indicate the party to be relieved first prime minister: David ben Gurion. There are only
(cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 7.1.44). The sense would be, then, two other Gorions mentioned in Josephus, however: at
“the raising of the siege from [though lit. for] the sol- 2.563 Joseph son of Gorion (brother to this man?) joins
diers,” for their benefit. At any rate, Josephus emphasizes Ananus II as supreme commander of the war for a short
that the ordinary people are appalled by the rebels’ treat- time; at 4.159 Gorion son of Joseph (the commander’s
ment of the garrison. son?) joins Simon son of Gamaliel in leading popular
2776
This is a patrician Latin family name (nomen indignation, on the side of Ananus, against the Zealots’
gentilicium)—cf. Livy 5.11.4 (for the year 401 BCE)—in choice of their own high priest.
2782
contrast to the cognomina that Josephus normally gives Possibly a nickname of uncertain meaning, or “the
for military commanders and officials (2.16, 54, 63, Sadducee.” Ilan and Price (1993-94: 195) point out that
169). The name has ironic possibilities: e.g., the Latin the apparently indeclinable form Σαδούκι does not meet
translation throughout gives Mutilius, “of the mutilated” our expectation of a genitive for the patronymic “son
(though the Latin Ps-Hegesippus keeps Metilius), which of.” (I would add that this and the parallel at 2.628 pro-
might be intended humorously by the Christian transla- vide the only examples of the -ούκι form in Josephus.)
tor given the officer’s imminent circumcision and the Behind this puzzling form they see a Hebrew ‫בן צדוקי‬,
common Greco-Roman view of that operation as muti- which they understand as “probably” signifying a Sad-
lation. Or again, the Greek word µέτηλυς means “one ducee. Problems: (a) since ‫ צדוקי‬alone would explain
who passes from one place to another”—also apt (cf. the Greek, it is unclear why ‫ בן‬is necessary; (b) Josephus
Latin muto) in view of Metilius’ adoption of foreign knew Hebrew well, but did not call this man a Sadducee
ways (“proselytism”). in Greek, and the single δ keeps the word far from his
2777
Greek ἔπαρχος (Latin praefectus) was the stan- Greek Σαδδουκαῖος; and (c) this identification would
dard rank of a cohort commander, as Metilius was. See prevent the identification of the same man at 2.628, in
the notes to “Sebastenes” at 2.52, “cohort” at 2.224, and the delegation episode, with the parallel Ananias of Life
“prefects” at 2.269. 197 (described there as a non-priestly Pharisee). Ilan
2778
The shamefulness of this request, and the unlikeli- and Price acknowledge most of this, but propose that
hood of its being honored in any case, have already been Josephus has accidentally carried over the names from
declared by the narrator (2.438), with the same adjective here to 2.628, so that the real Ananias of the delega-
in the preceding sentence (2.437). tion episode was the Pharisee of Life. That is a difficult
2779
Although this is normal procedure for a military prospect (see notes to 2.628).
2783
surrender, here it serves to set up the conditions of the These two men reappear at 2.628, where the latter
slaughter (2.452). is joined by his brother Simon in a delegation compris-
2780
Since the Romans have withdrawn to the high ing 4 of Jerusalem’s “eminent men,” arranged by John
towers (2.439), though ἀναπέµπω might also mean “sent of Gischala to oust Josephus from his Galilean com-
book two 333

After they had come, Metilius led his soldiers down.2786 452 As long as these were with Slaughter of
their weapons, none of the insurgents2787 laid a hand on2788 them and none showed any hint Judeans in
Caesarea
of a plot. But when, pursuant to the pact,2789 they all put aside their shields and swords and
began to withdraw, suspecting nothing more, 453 Eleazar’s group rushed at them and, after
surrounding them, did away with them2790—[men] who were neither defending themselves
nor pleading but only shouting out: “the pact!” and “the oaths!”2791
454 And so in this way they were all savagely butchered,2792 except Metilius. Him
alone they preserved,2793 when he had made pleas and promised to Judaize2794—to the

2790
mand. They and their colleagues are described there as Some scholars (e.g., Hengel 1989: 367 n. 264)
capable speakers, indicating a high level of rhetorical propose that the Fasting Scroll (Megillat Ta‘anit) cel-
education; such eminence would suit their membership ebrates this event at Meg. Ta‘an. 14 (i.e., the 2nd entry
here in the faction led by the distinguished priest and under group VI: Elul), dating it to Elul 17 (Julian calen-
temple commandant, Eleazar son of Ananias (2.409-10). dar August 26, 66 CE). This is doubtful, however, since
Ilan and Price (1993-94: 191-95), however, propose that the entry says plainly that on this day “the Romans evac-
Josephus was mistaken in carrying over the names from uated Judah and Jerusalem” (Zeitlin 1919-20: 241). This
this episode to 2.628. On the possible historical sig- vague statement hardly fits the story of the massacre, as
nificance of the fact that these members of Eleazar’s Zeitlin observes (1919-20: 266); nor, however, does it
faction should also be prominent in the war-time govern- easily match the earlier evacuation of Agrippa’s cavalry
ment of Ananus II, Josephus’ own supreme commander force (2.437), which is his proposal (1919-20: 267-68).
2791
(2.562-63), see the scholars mentioned in the note to See the note to “oaths” at 2.451. The truce agree-
“temple” at 2.422. ment (2.450) or pact (452) was that the garrison would
2784
Lit. “right hand.” lay down their weapons in exchange for oaths of assur-
2785
Oaths (ὅρκοι) were extremely important in ancient ance that their lives would then be spared (2.451).
2792
life, as the divine personification of Horkos (Horcus) For this phrase, see the note at 2.30.
2793
son of Eris (Strife), punisher of oath-breakers, attests Cohen (1979: 250-51) raises the question whether
(Hesiod, Op. 804). The word itself implies both the oath Metilius was subsequently murdered, or falsely reported
and the precious thing by which the oath is sworn. Jose- in Rome as murdered, to explain Suetonius’ reference to
phus relates several instances of elaborate oaths being a commander killed by the Jerusalem rebels (Vesp. 4.5).
sworn (Ant. 1.212, 323-24; 2.3, 253, 372-73; 5.15.26 Although we cannot know, it seems that if Josephus had
etc.) and emphasizes their absolutely binding nature even known of such a murder it would have enhanced his
where they seem to impose untenable circumstances on portrait of the rebels’ faithlessness to report it.
2794
the swearer (e.g., 5.169-74); they often result in a “pact” Ἰουδαΐζω is a rare verb, occurring in Josephus
as here (Ant. 5.55; 6.253; 7.111; 8.388). Yet Josephus only here and a few sentences later (2.463); elsewhere
displays a marked ambivalence about oath-making, and before about 200 CE: LXX Esth 8:17 (the only bibli-
many of his characters proceed to violate their commit- cal case: of Persians Judaizing to avoid persecution or
ments: see the note to “false oath” at 2.135. murder); Alexander Polyhistor, ap. Eusebius, Praep. ev.
2786
“Down” from the towers of Herod’s palace to 9.22.5; Gal 2:14; Plutarch, Cic. 7.6; Ignatius, Magn.
which the garrison had withdrawn for safety (2.439). 10; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.15.89. The bibli-
2787
See the note to this key term at 1.10. cal story of Persians Judaizing to avoid death may have
2788
The literal sense of ἐπιχειρέω happens to work provided an ironic model for Josephus’ choice of diction.
here, though the sense might be the more common meta- On the form of the verb, see the note to “Romanizing” at
phorical one: “none made an attempt/attack on them.” 2.562 below; Mason 2007c. There is nothing particularly
2789
Or “compact, covenant, contract”: i.e., the terms “religious” about the movement in question (contra e.g.
agreed to by oath in 2.450-51. Since συνθήκας is plural, Hengel 1989: 143, 198). In each case of its use outside
it might better be understood as “articles of agreement” Christian texts, this verb (like its formal parallels) has to
(as 2.397); but at its next occurrence in the same sen- do with adopting foreign ways: the laws, customs, and
tence (2.452) that phrase would be too cumbersome for constitution of another people.
translation. The word is the same as that used for “trea- The story does not claim that Eleazar’s group
ties” sworn between states, which like oaths in general demanded Judaizing or circumcision; but whether they
(see the note at 2.451) were taken very seriously (cf. required it or Metilius ingeniously hit upon the idea
Polybius 3.26.1-7). himself, it was plainly the only way that he could be
334 book two

point of circumcision.2795 Whereas for [the] Romans the suffering was light,2796 for out of

saved. Such adoption of Judean law and identity under body parts (and so was qualified with τῶν αἰδοίων [“of
duress is presented by our narrator as repugnant, here the genitals”] in cases of ambiguity), implied to Greeks
and elsewhere. At Life 113 he will claim that when his and Romans bodily mutilation; circumcision was one of
Galilean associates demanded the conversion of wealthy many deformities that excluded one from participation
Trachonitans who had come to join their cause, he indig- in the Olympic Games (Balsdon 1979: 231; Dover 1989:
nantly rejected the demand on the principle that such 125-27; Feldman 1993: 153-58; e.g., Aristophanes, Ach.
choices must be freely made. Similarly he applauds the 155-61; Strabo, Geog. 16.4.9; Horace, Serm. 1.9.69-71;
conversion and circumcision of the Adiabenian prince Catullus 47.4; Petronius 102.14; Martial 11.94; Tacitus,
Izates, who had every reason not to take the step (Ant. Hist. 5.5; Juvenal 5.14.96-106). These references also
20.38, 48-9, 85), and of Azizus the husband of Drusilla, show that circumcision, though practiced by some oth-
though he excoriates the lustful Felix for failing to ers, had by the 1st century CE come to be regarded as
pursue the same course in marrying a Judean princess a quintessentially Judean rite. Prior to the Maccabean
(20.139, 143). In other contexts, to be sure, Josephus revolt, élite Judean Hellenizers had famously under-
can celebrate without criticism the Hasmonean con- gone a procedure (“epispasm”) to undo the appearance
quests of neighboring territories, with the concomitant of circumcision, for the purpose of exercising naked in
requirement that the subjugated populace Judaize or the gymnasium (1 Macc 1:11; Josephus, Ant. 12.241).
depart from the land (Ant. 13.282, 284, 288, 299-300, Once again (see previous note), these rebels may have
319). Given the rebels’ debts to Hasmonean inspiration
seen themselves as latter-day Hasmoneans, not merely
(Farmer 1956; Hengel 1989; cf. Introduction), it may be
preserving circumcision but aggressively demanding it
that they considered it consistent with Judean tradition
of those who lived among them. Metilius’ circumcision
to demand that anyone living in their territories Judaize.
would be immediately visible at the baths of Sebaste or
In War, however, Josephus makes a systematic attempt
Caesarea (a daily ritual for Romans), making his shame
to reclaim the Hasmonean heritage for a more worldly
clear to fellow-bathers.
approach to politics. For discussion of the issues, see
For the story of Izates’ conversion to Judaism, see
Cohen 1987; Feldman 1993: 324-26. Chapman (2005:
293-96) contrasts Metilius’ effort to save his life, after Ant. 20.34-48.
2796
losing all his soldiers, with Josephus’ bid to Vespasian This observation, rhetorically powerful in high-
and Titus, after losing his forces (3.393-97)—similar lighting imminent calamity for the Judeans, does not
stories in these respects, though she notes that Josephus quite work as either logic or history. Logic: although the
does not allow Metilius to become a sympathetic figure. Romans lost only a few (auxiliaries), the Judeans lost
See further the following note. none at all. Josephus appears to begin on mundane arith-
2795
This is the only mention of circumcision in metical track (calculating losses against total resources)
War; see previous note. Much scholarly discussion has and then to jump to a metaphysical track (impending
attended the questions: (a) whether and to what extent doom). History: Roman leaders would assuredly not
there was a recognizable group of Judean “sympathiz- consider the loss of the Jerusalem garrison “light,” even
ers” in the Roman East, often understood as the “God- though they had vast forces remaining elsewhere. Jose-
fearers” (θεοσεβεῖς, οἱ φοβούµενοι τὸν θεόν) of the phus recognizes this when he has the Judeans despair at
NT’s Acts and various inscriptions (cf. Siegert 1973; the Romans’ likely vengeance (2.455). Issues of honor,
Kraabel 1981; overviews in Overman 1988; Feldman prestige, and reputation were paramount (cf. Lendon
1993: 177-413; Koch 2006), and (b) whether Judeans 1997; Mattern 1999: 4-6, 162-210). Josephus himself
of the time recognized something akin to conversion will relate that this very episode threatened to become
or Judean identity without the necessity of male cir- a large issue for Vespasian, when the Tyrians accused
cumcision—a discussion partly driven by the need to King Agrippa II of having been responsible for the gar-
understand early Christian phenomena (e.g., McEleney rison’s slaughter, by ordering his prefect Philip to depart
1974; Collins 1985; Cohen 1987; Segal 1990: 99-101). with his forces (2.421, 437). Vespasian dismissed the
Both this passage and the sequel (2.463) imply that it charge against Agrippa, but had him send Philip to Nero
was possible, and a well known phenomenon (even if to render an account (Life 407-9). Clearly, the loss of this
Judean law did not recognize the category), to Judaize garrison to the rebels was extremely serious.
in significant and recognizable ways without going as Josephus may have omitted any reference to Rome’s
far as circumcision. desire for revenge here because he wanted to sublimate
The very word (περιτοµή: “cutting off/around”), the discussion (and again, remove the destruction of
which could also apply to the severing of other items and Jerusalem from Roman credit): it will be the Judean
book two 335

a boundless2797 force a few were expended,2798 for the Judeans2799 it seemed a prologue2800
to capture.2801 455 Having preceived that the causes of the war were already irreme-
diable,2802 and that the city had been defiled2803 with such a great pollution,2804 as a
result of which it was reasonable to expect some other-worldly2805 wrath,2806 even if not

God who brings revenge on the rebels for their heinous brings divine punishment in the final purging at Roman
behavior in breaking oaths. One can certainly understand hands (see Introduction). Cognates appear some 36 times
Josephus’ point in reverse and with hindsight: although it in War (see notes at 2.132, 210, 424), though this noun
might have seemed a Judean victory, the rebels did not occurs in War only here and at 2.473; 6.48, 110. The
realize that it portended destruction for the Judeans; by whole semantic field, which enhances the tragic charac-
comparison, it was a trivial loss for the Romans. ter of War , would have been well familiar to Josephus’
2797
The adjective occurs only here in Josephus. Greek-speaking audience. Although some sources of pol-
Although the phrase ἄπλετος δύναµις seems a likely lution were unavoidable functions of life (as in Judean
cliché, it happens to be attested before Josephus only in law)—contact with birth, death, and bodily fluids—and
Philo (Prov. frag. 2.71). there was provision for routine expiation of these, sources
2798
Josephus’ choice of the rare, doubly prefixed verb of pollution that were difficult to expiate and likely to
ἀπαναλίσκω highlights the strategic calculation he pos- bring divine punishment were avoidable bloodshed and
its; but see the note to “light” in this section. sacrilege, both of which are present here. Perhaps the
2799
Niese follows MSS PAL and the Latin in read- most famous example is Sophocles’ Oedipus the King,
ing a genitive here (M-B agree): “it seemed a prologue which opens with Thebes facing plague, drought, and
of the Judeans’ capture.” Thackeray and Pelletier fol- infertility (Oed. tyr. 15-30) because of serious pollution
low MSS MVRC in reading a dative as translated. This (97), which turns out to have been filial murder.
2805
would match the earlier dative “To [the] Romans,” as one Or “miraculous, heaven-sent, supernatural, ghost-
would expect in a µέν . . . δέ construction. To be sure, ly, spooky.” Josephus uses the adjective δαιµόνιος (as
the awkward genitive is the lectio difficilior, to be pre- here), the noun δαίµων, and the neuter substantive τὸ
ferred under some circumstances. What seems to clinch δαιµόνιον liberally throughout War: 37 times (through
the case here is the immediate sequel (2.455): those who all 7 books), against only 18 occurrences in Antiquities
later began a public mourning require an antecedent, (clustered in 6.166-214, concerning Saul’s “demons,” and
which can only be provided here; they are the Judeans 8.45-48 concerning Solomon’s cures), 1 in Life (402),
for whom the episode portended capture. and 1 in Apion (2.263). The present phrase anticipates
2800
Although this is the only occurrence of προοίµιον fulfillment a couple of sentences later, at 2.457—the only
with this spelling in Josephus, his use of both the cog- other instance in War 2.
nate verb (War 2.89 above) and the tragic spelling of the Although context can give the word-group the con-
noun (Ant. 18.221) are similarly metaphorical, of coming notation of evil or oppressive spirits, as in the Antiqui-
disaster or terror. ties passages above (and War 1.556 concerning Herod),
2801
Josephus keeps the audience looking ahead to the δαίµων refers neutrally to the ghosts or shades of the
work’s main subject, which may also have been its origi- dead, or to other spiritual beings (War 1.521, 556, 599,
nal title (cf. 1.10 and note; 2.276, 394). 607, 628; 6.47). In a fascinating passage explaining
2802
See the note to “irremediable suffering “ at 2.233. the properties of a plant that grows near Machaerus,
For “irremediable” and “pollution” in proximity, see Josephus elaborates: “for what are called ‘demons’ (τὰ
Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 96. καλούµενα δαιµόνια)—these are spirits of worthless
2803
Josephus employs the verb φύρω only in War and [or evil] persons who enter into and kill the living, if
Life (138), though he uses the lengthened form φυράω, assistance is not at hand—this [root] quickly drives out,
of general “mixing,” in Antiquities. The shorter form has if it is merely applied to those who are ill” (7.185). This
the primary senses of “wetting” (as Life 138) or “mixing, passage, ignored in most studies of afterlife in Josephus
mingling” (as War 1.382; 6.75), and only by extension (e.g., Sievers 1998; Elledge 2006), has important implica-
the meaning of soiling, contaminating, or defiling. After tions for Josephus’ and Judean “demonology” (on which
this passage, Josephus will confine his usage to bk. 6, see Deines 2003). But this special definition, which inci-
where he will use the verb 4 times, 3 of these in con- dentally implies Judean expertise in exorcism (cf. Ant.
junction with “blood (shed)” or “carnage” as here (6.4, 8.44-49), applies only to the neuter plural δαιµόνια or
126, 372). to singular forms governed by such a context. Normally
2804
Pollution (µίασµα) is a major theme in Josephus’ τὸ δαιµόνιον indicates the whole category of the other-
works: it is the pollution of the temple by bloodshed that worldly or supernatural, sometimes presented in an either/
336 book two

the vengeance from the Romans, they began a public mourning;2807 and whereas the city
was full of despondency,2808 each of the reasonable [folk]2809 was troubled that he himself
would pay the penalty2810 for the sake of the insurgents.2811 456 For it happened, indeed,
that the slaughter was committed on a sabbath,2812 on which [day], for the sake of worship,
they observe a moratorium2813 even on holy activities.2814

or contrast with “the human [sphere]” (τὸ ἀνθρώπινον): Dionysius, Ant. rom. 1.23.1, 56.4, 79.7; 2.31.3; 6.10.1;
War 1.373, 376; 6.429 (cf. 7.158-59); Isocrates, Panath. 9.38.2; 12.10.2; Strabo, Geog. 5.2.9; Philo, Mos. 1.276;
169; Mem. 1.1.9, 12; Aeschines, Ctes. 133; Dionysius, Plutarch, Rom. 28.3; Num. 4.3; 5.3; Per. 34.4; Fab. 17.5;
Ant. rom. 3.7.4, 23.20; 8.56.1. See especially Socrates’ Aem. 34.8; Marcell. 17.5; Mar. 21.8; Luc. 7.26; Mor.
discussion in Plato, Apol. 27c-e. Hence “other-worldly” 161c;236d; 582b/588c [on the genius of Socrates]; 772b;
here. 999e). It is not improbable that Socrates’ famous claim
Two points related to War’s usage deserve special helped suggest the later usage.
2806
attention. First, Josephus attributes a number of impor- In Josephus µήνιµα appears only here and at Ant.
tant events and situations in War to this mysterious, 16.188 (to describe God’s wrath toward Herod for open-
numinous category: Herod’s miraculous escape from a ing the tomb of David). It is a serious, programmatic
falling building (1.331); Josephus’ ability to find safety rage, reminiscent of Achilles’ infamous µῆνις, which
in a cave at besieged Iotapata (3.341); Titus’ soldiers’ opens the Iliad (Il. 1.1).
2807
being overtaken by a supernatural determination before Here πενθέω. Mourning is part of a primary the-
the conflict (3.485; cf. 5.502); Vespasian’s enjoyment matic cluster supporting this work’s tragic ethos; see the
of superhuman courage (4.34); a miraculous wind that note to “mourn over” at 1.9.
2808
turned against the Judeans (4.76); Titus’ direction by In War (also 2.649; 6.98; 7.145) and Life (212)
some uncanny impulse to return to Judea from Greece Josephus always predicates κατήφεια of the city, the
(4.501); Vespasian’s support by some other-worldly pro- populace, or the mob.
2809
vision or foreknowledge (4.622); supernatural help for See the note at 2.275.
2810
the Judeans of times long past, by contrast with those It appears from what follows that justice would be
now fighting Rome (5.377); most famously, the super- exacted, as the reasonable folk knew, by God as much
natural impulse that led a Roman soldier to thrust a flam- as by the Romans.
2811
ing piece of wood into the main temple shrine (6.252); See the note to this key term at 1.10.
2812
omens of Jerusalem’s destruction (6.297, 303); the gift This is one of only 4 occurrences of the σαββατ-
of supernatural foreknowledge to Vespasian in planning root in War ; in this work he prefers to speak of the “sev-
to suppress the Batavian revolt (7.82); and the divine enth [day]”; see the note at 2.147. Perhaps Josephus uses
assistance to the Romans at Masada (7.318). the word here to give local color, stressing the awareness
Second, with remarkable frequency—as in the present of the Jerusalem population that the militants had vio-
passage—Josephus combines a reference to these super- lated their own sacred day.
2813
natural forces with a qualifying “some, a certain” (τις): Josephus has chosen the mot juste. On the one
War 1.331, 628; 3.341; 4.217; 5.502; 6.59, 252, 296; hand, ἐκεχειρία is also the term he will use (cf. Philo,
7.120; Ant. 6.166; 13.317, 415; 16.210; Life 402; Apion Spec. 2.69; Virt. 122) for divine rest from labor on the
2.263. Although such usage has occasional parallels in seventh day, which generated the sabbath practice in
classical Greek literature (Homer, Il. 4.31; Herodotus view here (Ant. 1.33). But this was a metaphorical use
7.18.13; Xenophon, Mem. 1.3.5; Equ. 11.13; Demos- of the term, the primary application of which was to
thenes, Olynth. 2.1; Phil. 3.54; Fals. leg. 256; Exord. armistices or truces, in the brutal atmosphere of classical
39.2; Aeschines, Ctes. 117; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 1214a; Greece (cf. Bederman 2001: 252-53; for an “anarchic”
Mir. ausc. 846b; Mund. 391a; Rhet. 1398a; LXX Ps 95:5; contextualization, Eckstein 2006), during such pan-Hel-
Bar 4:7), the almost formulaic frequency in Josephus lenic festivals as the Olympic Games (cf. the note to
appears to require an explanation other than coincidence. “armistice” at 2.389, with relevant passages cited; also
It might have something to do with the programmatic 3.72): touring truce-bearers proclaimed the temporary
statement of Socrates in Plato, Apol. 31c-d, attribut- cessation of hostilities (Dio, Or. 77/78.142). In view of
ing his gadfly activity to “something divine and other- the actual violence committed here, the term is no longer
worldly that comes to me” (cf. Phaedo 99c), or it might simply metaphorical.
2814
reflect what seems to be a general increase in this con- The rebels have thus fulfilled, in an extreme way,
struction among Hellenistic authors (Diodorus 1.90.3; Agrippa’s prediction (2.392-93) that sabbath violations
11.14.4, 63.2; 15.58.4; 24.12.2; 32.18.1; 38/9.19.1; will bring their ruin. Josephus has managed to connect in
book two 337

(18.1) 457 On the same day and at the same time, as if from other-worldly fore-
knowledge,2815 the Caesareans began to do away with the Judeans among them. Thus, more
than 20,0002816 were butchered2817 within a single hour, and all Caesarea was emptied of
Judeans:2818 for Florus arrested those who were trying to escape2819 and took them down
into the dockyards2820 as prisoners.
458 At this blow from Caesarea the entire nation became brutalized*:2821 they formed Judean raiders
attack Syria and
Decapolis

one episode bloodshed, oath-breaking, and sacrilege—all 10,000 might be a plausible figure for the Judean popula-
the most heinous forms of “pollution”; see the note to tion of greater Caesarea.
2817
this word at 2.455. Or “were sacrificed, slaughtered, had their throats
2815
Possibly “from a heaven-sent provision, provi- cut.” See the note at 2.30. In these contexts of mass
dence.” Other translators (Whiston, Thackeray, Pelletier, slaughter in confined spaces (also 2.468, 561) Josephus
M-B) take it as a straightforward reference to (divine) indicates at 2.471 that the massacre may have been ac-
Providence, but the point seems to be that, since the complished by spear-throwing.
2818
Caesarean slaughter of Judeans began at precisely the This notice greatly complicates efforts to recon-
hour in which the Roman garrison was slaughtered in struct events. In this narrative, the Caesarean massacre
Judea, and the Caesareans cannot have known about sets off Judean reprisals (2.458-60), which lead in turn to
the latter by normal means, it was as if they had an massacres throughout the region, prompting the Batanean
uncanny foreknowledge. As for this-worldly explana- Judeans to request a defensive force from Noarus—but
tions: Josephus has already given abundant evidence of their delegation is killed by the viceroy (2.482). Accord-
Judean-Syrian (“Greek”) conflict in Caesarea (2.266-70, ing to Life, Varus (here “Noarus”) first killed many of
284-93), explicitly blaming it for the generation of the the Judeans to please the “Syrians” there (§ 53), then
war (2.284-85). sent 12 of the leading Judeans of Caesarea on a mis-
For the adjective “other-worldly” see the note at the sion to Batanea (§ 55), and was eventually removed by
only other occurrence in bk. 2 (2.455), which prepares Agrippa II because he was thought to be planning the
for this one. Josephus uses the phrase δαιµόνιος πρόνοια massacre of Caesarea’s Judeans on a single day (§ 61).
5 times, though only in War (1.82; 4.622; 7.82, 318; cf. Yet Varus’/Noarus’ plot and removal cannot have hap-
Ant. 13.314 for something similar). In all cases but the pened before the massacre mentioned here, because (in
first, he constructs it with preceding ὡς, ὡσπερ (as here), War ) this massacre is the basis for the events that lead
or καθάπερ: “as if/as though.” Before his time the phrase to Agrippa’s departure for Antioch (2.481) and Noarus’
seems attested only in Diodorus (1.90.3; 11.14.4); Diodo- appointment as acting governor. But if Caesarea’s Judeans
rus (3.5.1; cf. 16.92.2) and Dionysius (Ant. rom. 3.14.2; are destroyed now, as War claims, then Life’s account of
4.26.2; 10.10.2) use the similar phrase ἡ τοῦ δαιµονίου Varus’ efforts to destroy them would make no sense.
2819
πρόνοια. So we may consider Josephus’ phrase distinc- We should very much like to have Florus’ account
tive of War and, given its distribution, a marker of the of this episode. Josephus has already portrayed a shift
unity between War 1-6 and bk. 7. from neutral peace-keeping to siding with the non-
The noun πρόνοια is important in Josephus’ lexicon, Judeans in Caesarea (2.292) and, in general, a desire to
occurring 159 times (about 118 of these in Antiquities; provoke Judeans at every opportunity (2.288, 293, 296,
on the centrality of the theme in that work, see Attridge 298, 308, 318).
2820
1976: 67-107). Its meaning shades from “foreknowledge” This is the only occurrence of νεώριον (here plu-
and “providence” (providentia) to “forethought” and ral) in Josephus.
2821
“watchful care”; therefore, when predicated of human The verb ἐξαγριόω is most often used of Herod
leaders, “provision” (see Mason in BJP 9 ad Life 15, and members of his family, then of various Romans,
62). For the statesman’s effort to imitate divine πρόνοια in the final volumes of Antiquities, as they are tragi-
see Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.51. cally turned savage by circumstances (1.473, 526; Ant.
2816
This figure is generally considered a standard 15.148, 164, 216, 282; 18.226; 19.142, 160, 175). It
Josephan inflation (though not by Levine 1975b: 8-9). is characteristic diction in Philo (15 occurrences) and
Kloppenborg (2000: 245) gives cogent reasons for esti- Josephus (16), whereas it is attested only 23 times in
mating Caesarea’s entire mixed population at around all of Greek literature before them, the 6 occurrences
15-18,000 for the city proper, perhaps 50% more in Diodorus representing the next highest count among
including the areas immediately beyond the walls. But previous authors.
the Judeans were reportedly a minority (2.266): about
338 book two

themselves into units and began ravaging the Syrians’ villages and the adjacent cities:2822
Philadelphia2823 as well as Esebonitis,2824 Gerasa,2825 Pella,2826 and Scythopolis.2827 459 Then,

2822
This could mean adjacent to the villages, to Syria, the city, along with Esebonitis (below), as marking the
or to the Judeans; the 3 senses overlap here. The cities E extremity of Perea and the beginning of Arabia. The
are in 4 clusters: the first 5 form the E perimeter of only other reference in Josephus is an important one:
Perea; the next 3 are further N, near the Sea of Gali- the opening sentences of Ant. 20 (1-5) describe a serious
lee (Kinneret); then Josephus turns to 3 on the W side outbreak of hostilities in the mid-40s. Some Judeans of
of Galilee; and the final group of 4 moves from inland Perea, exasperated by the behavior of “belligerent men”
Sebaste to the main coastal cities W of Judea. The first from the Philadelphian village of Zia (emended from a
two groups include most cities of the Decapolis. puzzling mia) in their midst, attacked the larger city in
In 63 BCE Pompey had granted many Syrian cities retaliation, without consulting either their own leaders
their freedom, producing a symbolic group called the or the Roman governor Fadus. He, in anger at this inde-
“Ten Cities” (Decapolis), although the identity of the pendent revenge, punished their leaders, executing one
places in question was uncertain even in the 70s CE, as named Hannibal—the curious name itself possibly sug-
Pliny observes while giving his list (Nat. 5.74): Damas- gesting ingrained serious anti-Roman sentiment among
cus (replaced by Eusebius with Abila; Onom. 32.16), some Judeans of the region. It may be that the raids
Philadelphia, Rephana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, now being described were also against such Philadel-
Dium, Pella, Gerasa [or Galasa], and Canatha; cf. the phian holdings as Zia rather than against the city itself,
note to “Ten Cities” at Life 341 in BJP 9. on the analogy of Tyre’s, Gadara’s, and Hippos’ village
Many of these cities have been named by Josephus possessions.
2824
as places conquered or destroyed by the Hasmoneans, Mod. Hishban, 22 km (13.5 miles) SW of Phila-
which Pompey rebuilt as needed and freed or made sub- delphia, a slightly shorter distance E of the NE corner
ject to the Romans in Syria (War 1.156; Ant. 14.75); sev- of the Dead Sea; biblical Heshbon, mentioned dozens
eral were later given to Herod by Augustus (1.396-97), of times (Num 21:25-34; Deut 1:4; 2:24-30; 3:2-6; Josh
sometimes to the outrage of the local Greek inhabit- 12:2-5) as the former stronghold of King Sihon of the
ants (e.g., Ant. 15.351-58); three (Galilean Gaba, Perean Amorites; conquered by the Israelites during Moses’ life-
Esebonitis, and coastal Caesarea) are listed together in time, before they crossed the Jordan into Canaan. Not far
Ant. 15.293-94 as places built and fortified by Herod from the Tobiad redoubt of ‘Araq el-Emir (Ant. 12.233),
as bulwarks against his disaffected Judean population and in Judean hands after the conquests of Alexander
(15.292). So the potential for Greek-Judean conflict Janneus (Ant. 13.397), it was reportedly rebuilt and gar-
here had old roots. According to Life 42, 331-42, 410, risoned by Herod as a defense against his own popula-
raids on the Decapolis (i.e., on their dependent villages) tion, matched in this respect by Galilean Gaba/Hippeon
had been conducted by some Tiberians led by Justus of (Ant. 15.294). Although it presumably passed to Antipas
Tiberias (who does not appear in War), among others, in the settlement after Herod’s death, we have no clear
though it is difficult to be certain whether these are the indication of that; War 3.47 observes that it was one
same raids. The long list of places attacked recalls the of the Greek cities (with Philadelphia and Gerasa) that
later Hasmonean expansionist campaigns. It cannot be marked the end of Judean Perea. Thus Josephus’ list goes
taken at face value as a series of spontaneous attacks on S after Philadelphia, then to turn steadly N/NW until
virtually all the border areas of Judea, by ordinary citi- Scythopolis.
2825
zens (no matter how zealous), against large cities built Mod. Jerash, Jordan, is among the best known
on defensible sites—many of them far from the Judean of the Decapolis cities as a result of extensive excava-
heartland. It seems that in many cases Josephus must tions begun in 1925. Gerasa sat in the mirror position E
have in mind actions against the outlying interests or of the Jordan River to Samaria-Sebaste on the W side,
possessions of these cities. at the same latitude and the same distance (32 km [20
This list of places attacked by Judeans opens a char- miles]) from the river, straddling the Chrysorhoas River
acteristic inclusio, which will be completed when most (“Golden Stream,” tributary of the Jabbok/Zarka). It was
of the same cities reciprocally turn against their own built on a cluster of small hills enclosed by much larger
Judean inhabitants (2.477-80). hills to the W, N, and E, about 35 km (22 miles) N of
2823
Mod. Amman, Jordan (bibl. Rabbah). It has Philadelphia. Although most of the uncovered structures
appeared only sporadically in War as basically hostile date from the 2nd century CE and later, which was the
territory belonging to Nabatean Arabs (1.60 [cf. Ant. period of its greatest prosperity (two Hadrianic arches,
13.235], 129, 380). At 3.46-47 Josephus will identify cardo with N and S decumanus, two theaters [the S the-
book two 339

after attacking Gadara,2828 Hippos,2829 and Gaulanitis2830—first sacking and then burning

ater from Domitian’s time], a small hippodrome S of the early times. Acquiring the name “polis of the Scyth-
city [approximate seating 15,000], temple to Zeus with ians” (the significance is unclear) at some point soon
large plaza, temple to Artemis, macellum [food market], after Alexander the Great’s conquest, it remained a Greek
hundreds of inscriptions and coins), Gerasa had long stronghold until John Hyrcanus and his sons captured it
been a center of Hellenistic culture. near the end of his reign (d. 104 BCE; 1.65-66), possibly
The city’s most famous son was the Pythagorean with the help of betrayal from within (Ant. 13.277, 280).
Nicomachus, author of an enormously influential Intro- It was among the cities liberated from Judean control
duction to Arithmetic and also a Handbook of Music, by Pompey in 63 BCE (War 1.156), to become the only
who may have been a younger contemporary of Jose- Decapolis city W of the Jordan. It reportedly needed
phus (ca. 60-120 CE?). See e.g., A. H. M. Jones 1928; repopulating and restoring after the brief rebellion of
Kraeling 1938; Browning 1982; Khouri 1986; Zayadine Aristobulus’ son Alexander—or perhaps after earlier
1986; Watts and Watts 1992; Uscatescu and Martín- devastations (1.166).
Bueno 1997; Kennedy 2007. Gerasa (surprisingly called At any rate, Josephus describes it as the greatest city
“Essa” at Ant. 13.393; cf. War 1.104) was reportedly of the Decapolis (3.446). It must have had a large terri-
taken by Alexander Janneus, and it was while besieging tory, for he makes the territories of Scythopolis, Gadara,
a Gerasene town that he died (13.398). It is of particu- and Hippos define the SE limits of Galilee. Scythopo-
lar interest that Simon bar Giora, ultimately one of the lis’ location made it, along with the western villages of
two principal leaders of the revolt (see note at 2.521), Gadara and Hippos, a relatively easy target for Judean
is said by Josephus to be a native of a Gerasa (which raiders, especially those based in Tiberias (cf. Life 42,
we should understand as this one, though the preceding 341, 410) about 32 km (20 miles) to the N. That prox-
paragraphs [4.486-89] describe Vespasian’s campaign imity might help to account for both the ferocity of the
against a Gerasa that seems to be a corruption of Gezer Judean attacks on Scythopolis and also the presence of
or the like; see Bergmeier 1998)—apparently the son of a large Judean population in the city—Josephus claims
a convert there (4.503). Finally, it is possible that Gerasa more than 13,000 at 2.468, many tens of thousands at
or a nearby town of Essa (if that is not another name for Life 26. Even the former number seems high—to face
the site) was the home of at least one figure named an the coming massacre (2.466-76). As Josephus repeat-
Essaeus by Josephus; it is even possible that all Essaei edly explains while narrating older history (Ant. 5.83;
(Essenes) had an original connection with the place. See 6.374; 12.348; 13.188), the site known among Judeans
the notes to “Essaeus” at 2.113, 567. as Bethesana or Bethsan (‫בית שאן‬, “house of She’an”)
2826
Another Decapolis city, Pella was less than 5 km is called Scythopolis by the Greeks; Pliny (Nat. 5.74)
(3 miles) E of the Jordan, and so quite close (12 km, connects the site with Liber-Dionysus, claiming that the
7.5 miles) to the next-named Scythopolis to the W of God buried his nurse-nymph Nysa there and that the city
the river; Josephus makes Pella the N border of Judean formerly carried her name.
Perea (3.47). It was one of the Decapolis cities captured Scythopolis was extensively excavated throughout the
by Alexander Janneus, who singled it out for destruction 20th century. Although most of the impressive structures
because its inhabitants “would not accept going over (large theater, temples, baths, sculptures, streets) are
to the customs of the Judeans” (Ant. 13.397; cf. War from the 2nd century CE and later, enough remains from
1.104). This no doubt grounded a tradition of Greek- the 1st century to support literary evidence that it was a
Judean hostility. Like other Hasmonean conquests, it vibrant Greek city at Josephus’ time; see Appendix A
was detached and freed by Pompey in 63 BCE (War in BJP 9.
2828
1.156; Ant. 14.75). See McNicoll 1982; Smith and Day Mod. Umm Qeis. See Appendix A in BJP 9. A
1989; Sheedy, Garson et al. 2001. According to a much- famous center of Greek culture on a high plateau over-
discussed later Christian tradition (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. looking the Yarmuk River to the N, Gadara produced
3.5.2-3; Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.7-8; 30.2.7; Mens. 15), renowned figures associated with Cynic philosophy:
at about the time of Josephus’ narrative (just before the the poet-satirists Menippus (early 2nd cent. BCE) and
outbreak of war) Christian communities in Judea left for Meleager (1st cent. BCE), and later Oenomaus (early 2nd
Pella; for critical discussion see Lüdemann 1980. cent. CE). Gadara was taken and partially destroyed, it
2827
Sitting in the center of the small plain that marks seems, by Alexander Janneus (War 1.86), then freed and
the first opening of the S-N Jordan-Valley route into rebuilt by Pompey (1.155) before being given by Augus-
the Great Plain (Jezreel Valley) to the NW, the site that tus to Herod (1.396). The Judean king’s rule brought
would become Scythopolis was populated from very repeated but ineffective protests from the Greek citizens
340 book two

them—they advanced against Kadasa of the Tyrians2831 as well as Ptolemais,2832 Gaba,2833

and also Caesarea.2834 460 Neither Sebaste2835 nor Ascalon2836 held out against their charges,

(Ant. 15.351, 354, 356, 358): they were not returned to (3.39-40). Kadasa illustrates that broad reach, as it was
Roman administration until after his death (Ant. 17.320; 35 km (22 miles) inland from coastal Tyre as the crow
War 2.97). Since Gadara sat on a ridge 378 m (1,240 ft) flies (and over difficult terrain with no direct road con-
above sea level and nearly 600 m (1,970 ft) above Lake necting), only 10 km (6 miles) NE of the Judean town
Kinneret, attacking it was no simple prospect; Alexander of Gischala. At 4.105 Josephus will describe Kadasa: “It
Janneus reportedly needed a siege of 10 months (Ant. is a sturdy interior village of the Tyrians, perpetually at
13.356). If these are the same attacks as those described war (driven by hatred) with the Galileans, finding in its
in Life 42, 341-42, 410—the only ones mentioned in throng of residents and its solidity resources for its con-
that work when Decapolis residents complain to Vespa- flict with the nation.” The MSS reveal uncertainty about
sian—then they seem to have been against the vulnerable the spelling, offering also Kasada and Kedasa.
dependent villages of Gadara, not against the city itself 2832
See the note at 2.67. Josephus’ description has
(cf. Tyrian Kadasa, rather than Tyre itself). moved to the Greek cities W of Galilee.
2829
The history of Hippos (“horse,” because of its 2833
The MSS show confusion over the name, several
saddle-like profile, a small city overlooking Lake Kin- offering “Gabala” and one even “Gaia.” Although the site
neret from the E, N of the Yarmuk River) is similar to is not yet certainly identified (see Appendix A to BJP 9),
that of Gadara (previous note) 14 km to the SE: Hippos Josephus is clear about its approximate location—4 km
too was made a free city by Pompey (1.56), later given to (2.5 miles) from Besara (Beit-Shearim; Life 118) on the
Herod (1.396). Returned to Syria after his death (2.97),
SW edge of Galilee (War 3.35), somewhere along the
it found its villages subject to raids by the Judeans of
meeting point of Galilee with the Plain of Acco-Ptole-
Tiberias—possibly the incident(s) mentioned here. One
mais (Life 115-17)— and about its founding by King
such vulnerable possession might have been Hippos’ har-
Herod along with Esebonitis (2.485 above) as a base
bor on the lake below, though Josephus (Life 42, 341-42,
for his cavalry, against the prospect of rebellion from
410) has Tiberians attacking villages lying in between
his own people (Ant. 15.294), and the town’s continuing
the chora of Tiberias and that of Scythopolis (35 km
loyalty to Roman-Herodian forces (Life 115-18). All of
[21.75 miles] to the S on the W side of the Jordan).
2830
See the note at 2.168. Of all the sites mentioned in these conditions help to explain its appeal as a target for
this paragraph, this is the odd one out because: (a) it is these Judean raiders.
2834
not a city, but a vague descriptor including potentially the See the note at 2.16. This casual mention is
entire Golan, which hosted the towns of Iulias, Gamala, remarkable given the city’s pivotal role in these very
and Seleuceia, among others; (b) it was territory subject events. According to Josephus, the effort by wealthy and
to the Judean King Agrippa (2.247), and lacked Greek numerous Judeans to remake the city as theirs (2.266)
cities like those of the Decapolis, except perhaps Iulias; and to buy up land for their communal use (2.285)
(c) the whole region features extremely difficult terrain, ignited a serious conflict with the “Greek” residents,
far from the Judeans’ bases; and (d) Josephus mentions which was then fanned by the unscrupulous governor
no reprisals against Judeans in this area, in contrast to Florus. Now, the massacre of more than 20,000 Judeans
most of the other cities they attacked (2.477-78). It may there has ignited these Judean raids on all the Greek
well be, then, that he has in mind small raids on villages cities (2.457), in which Caesarea is only one of many
at the edges of the Golan, in conjunction with attacks on targets.
2835
the territory of Hippos. Perhaps substituting for a reprisal See the notes to “Sebastenes” at 2.52, to “Samaria”
is the later story of Noarus’ execution of the 70 from at 2.69, and to “Sebaste” at 2.97. This city, refounded by
Batanea in Agrippa’s absence (2.481-83). Herod, has been a traditional source of aggravation to the
2831
This is biblical Kedesh of Naphtali, designated a Judeans, not least because of its role as a major recruit-
city of refuge (Josh 21:32; cf. 12:22; 15:23) and later ing ground for the auxiliary forces that the Romans use
captured with other northern towns by Tiglath-Pileser to control the province.
2836
of Assyria (1 Kgs 15:29). Of contemporary Tyre, the See the note concerning this old and profitable
ancient Phoenician trading capital (see note at 2.239), coastal city (bibl. Ashkelon of the Philistines; Josh
Josephus will claim that its residents were the bitterest 13:3; Judg 1:18; 1 Sam 6:17 etc.) at 2.98, and espe-
enemies of the Judeans in the region (Apion 1.70). Tyre’s cially Appendix A to BJP 1a. Philo, writing in the 40s
dependent territories extended deep into the interior, so CE about an advisor to Gaius Caligula named Apelles,
far as to form the northern boundary of Upper Galilee who had ties to Ascalon, remarks that “the Ascalonites
book two 341

but in addition to their having been destroyed by fire2837 they razed Anthedon2838 and Ga-
za.2839 Many villages in the region of each of these cities were also taken by storm, and
the murder of the men who were being captured was endless.
(18.2) 461 The Syrians,2840 to be sure, did not make away with a lesser horde of Judeans, Syrians retaliate
but they too would butcher2841 those who were being taken in the cities—not solely out of against Judeans
in their cities.
a hatred that was as before,2842 but now also anticipating the risk to themselves.2843 462 A Cf. Life 25
terrible disturbance2844 was gripping the whole of Syria, and every city had been divided2845
into two armed camps;2846 safety for the one side consisted in anticipating the others.2847
463 They spent their days in bloodshed, but still more difficult were the nights [they
spent] in dread.2848 For they all severally,2849 though thinking it proper2850 that the Judeans

2840
have a truceless and irreconcilable hostility to the Judean Cf. Eleazar son of Ya‘ir at 7.367: there was not a
residents of the sacred territory on whose borders they city in Syria that did not do away with its Judean resi-
live” (Legat. 205). Josephus will likewise claim that the dents (though he ignores the context here of prior Judean
Judeans had always harbored a hatred for Ascalon (3.10). attacks, and Josephus’ exceptions at 2.497), and Agrippa
It will no doubt be in part because of the violent response II’s recent prediction (2.398-99) that Judean rebellion
of the Ascalonites to the present attack (cf. 2.477) that would certainly mean the massacre of Judeans in many
the Judeans who defeat Cestius will select Ascalon as other cities.
2841
their first target thereafter—an effort, however, that will Or “slaughter, cut the throats of.” See the note
end in a disastrous rout costing more than 10,000 Judean at 2.457.
2842
lives (3.9-28). Understanding πρότερον as an adjective modi-
2837
This is the only occurrence of πυρπολέω in War , fying µῖσος (cf. Latin vetus odium) rather than as an
though it appears 7 times in Josephus’ other works. adverb modifying “butcher,” since there is little evidence
2838
With the surrounding areas, this southern coastal of earlier massacres in Syria, which would surely have
city was conquered by the Hasmonean Alexander Jan- led to earlier emigration, but much (in the narrative) to
neus (1.87; Ant. 13.357), rebuilt by Gabinius (1.164), suggest long-standing tensions.
2843
and presented to Herod by Augustus (1.396); Herod Evidently, in view of the Judean raiding parties
renamed it in honor of Agrippa (1.87, 416), though as we just described (2.458-60).
2844
see here the original name ultimately prevailed. Although See the note at 2.170.
2845
it is unclear whether this city was given to Archelaus Possibly imperfect “was being divided” (with
or immediately returned to Syria after Herod’s death, it MSS AM and Latin); the other MSS have the pluperfect
ended up as a Syrian city again. Anthedon and Gaza are as rendered here.
2846
also mentioned together by Pliny (Nat. 5.68), though he This (στρατόπεδον) is Josephus’ normal word for
mistakenly places Anthedon inland, whereas Gaza was military or legionary camps. Although his language is
slightly inland from the coast and Anthedon, a little fur- cryptic in this passage, he seems to mean that within
ther N, lay directly on the shore. each Syrian city the Judeans and non-Judeans now sep-
2839
A very old Philistine trading port (e.g., Gen 10:19; arated and tried to protect themselves, each from the
Josh 10:41; Jer 47:5; Herodotus [Cadytis] 2.159.2; 3.5.2) other. If so, the Judean minorities, as distinct from the
at the S end of the Mediterranean coast; see the note at raiding parties (2.458-60), clearly suffered the greater
2.97. The former strength of the city is shown by the losses (2.463).
2847
difficulty faced by Alexander the Great in capturing it— Josephus appears to indicate, then, extreme vio-
after a 2-month siege (Ant. 11.325; Diodorus 17.48.7). lence from both the Syrian and the Judean sides within
More than two centuries later, Alexander Janneus had these cities (as also in the next clause). Given that the
to besiege it for a year to take it, only then with the Judean residents suffered disproportionate losses, if he
aid of internal betrayal (1.87; Ant. 13.358-61). Josephus means that the Judeans’ safety consisted in preparing
admires the remarkable courage of the Gazans facing adequate defenses, that would not explain why the other
destruction from Alexander’s Hasmonean forces, remark- (Syrian) side had anything to fear, or to anticipate and
ing that many burned down their own houses in order to prevent. His meaning is not clear: he may have fallen
keep them from the enemy. Gaza was among the coastal back on balanced clauses, implying mutual harm, for the
cities freed from Judean rule by Pompey (1.156; Ant. sake of art rather than clarity.
2848
14.76). Rebuilt under Gabinius (Ant. 14.88), it passed to The scene and the language recall the horrors
Herod by grant of Augustus (War 1.396) and returned to described at 2.256, with the appearance of the sicarii
Roman Syria in the settlement after his death (2.97). in Jerusalem.
342 book two

had been gotten rid of,2851 continued to hold in suspicion2852 those who were Judaizing:2853
while no one stood quite ready2854 to do away with this ambiguous [element] in the various
[places], each feared a mixed2855 [person] as though an actual foreigner.
464 Now what kept calling forward, for the butchering of their foes,2856 even those
who had long seemed altogether mild, was greed. For they would pillage with impunity
the belongings of those who had been done away with and, just as if they were the spoils
of those who had been done away with as a result of battle,2857 they would transfer [the
goods] to their own houses. The one who had gained the most was held in honor, as
having overcome the greater number.2858 465 It was [possible] to see the cities filled with
unburied bodies, old men’s corpses scattered together with infants,2859 also women who
had not benefited from a covering for modesty, and all the province filled with indescrib-
able calamities,2860 yes, but still greater than what had been dared in each of these cases
was the tension over what was still being threatened.2861

2849
Although throughout this sentence Josephus uses nate adjective appears 4 times).
2855
masculine ἕκαστοι, and so cannot grammatically be Possibly “tainted” (µεµιγµένον), perhaps with
assuming (feminine) πόλεις as subject, in repeating the sexual connotations, since the verb is a common euphe-
idea of “each” and “several” he seems to have in view mism for sexual relations—suggesting a metaphorical
the various city populations of Syria (assuming δῆµοι miscegenation or contamination. For Judaizing as a
or similar). mixing or confusion of incompatible traditions, produc-
2850
Or simply “thinking,” depending on whether this ing an uncertain status, see Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr.
contrasts mainly with what goes before (although the 2.9.19-21.
2856
one camp thought they had destroyed the other, Judaizers Josephus’ tragic-emotive language (ἐπὶ τὰς
remained) or with what comes after (although they con- σφαγὰς τῶν διαφόρων) could be understood as either
sidered it fitting in the circumstances to rid themselves (called out) “for the various acts of butchery of foes”
of Judeans, they could not bring themselves to kill Juda- (see the note to “butchery” at 2.197) or “against the
izers among their own). throats [i.e., slaughter-points] of foes.” For the latter see
2851
Or “bundled off.” This is the same verb (ἀπο- “slaughter” at 2.619, with note.
2857
σκευάζω) that Josephus has used in the sense of “off- Although παράταξις often means “formation,
loading” responsibility at 2.73. Here it becomes another forming up, marshaling, battle line,” Josephus tends to
euphemism for killing, a sense he will employ soon use it for the battle or engagement itself: 1.45, 95, 102,
again (2.478). 191, 336, 341, 342; 2.464, 470 (see the note to “that
2852
For suspicion of the Judeans in Damascus (that engagement” at Life 341 in BJP 9). Of the 43 occur-
they might attack the locals after their defeat of Cestius), rences in his corpus, 32 are in War .
2858
see 2.560. Josephus’ balanced chiasm has an epigram-
2853
See the note to this verb at 2.454. It is noteworthy matic quality: [ἔνδοξός τε ἦν] ὁ πλεῖστα κερδάνας ὡς
that Josephus manages to use it twice in such proximity, κατισχύσας πλειόνων.
2859
yet nowhere else in his 30 volumes, a typical feature of Josephus often juxtaposes the elderly with infants,
his style (see Introduction). In this case the re-use is usually in combination with someone’s lack of pity,
purposeful, for he has elaborately connected the massa- mercy, or compassion for them, as a way of heighten-
cre of Judeans with the Judeans’ unjust massacre of the ing the tragic force of the narrative (cf. 2.496; 3.201;
Roman garrison in Jerusalem (2.455-57). In both cases 4.82; 5.430, 433; for a misplaced pity for elders, women,
“Judaizers” are spared: by the Judeans, because of the and infants, involving Saul and the Amalekites, see Ant.
cynical welcome they gave to a (forced) convert; by the 6.133-38, 260-62).
2860
Syrians because the Judaizers, though deeply suspect, A programmatic term (sing. συµφορά), enhancing
were not wholly alien. Perhaps, then, these Judaizers had the tragic tone, in War and especially in bk. 2; see the
not proceeded “all the way to circumcision” as Metilius notes at 1.9; 2.286. It appears again soon (2.467).
2861
had (2.454). On the vast number of Damascene women The text has several possibilities; the interpreter
who had allegedly embraced Judean law in some unclear faces a number of uncertainties. MSS PAML have [τὴν
way, see 2.560. ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀπειλουµένοις] ἀνάστασιν (“uprising against
2854
Greek οὔτε ἀνελεῖν τις προχείρως ὑπέµενεν. The the things or people being threatened, terrified” [pas-
adverb appears only here in Josephus (though the cog- sive] or “against those who were forbidding with threats”
book two 343

(18.3) 466 Whereas until these [events], assaults by the Judeans were clearly against Scythopolitan
the foreign [element], in conducting forays against2862 Scythopolis2863 they encountered2864 Judeans fight
compatriots,
Judean enemies among them.2865 For, having fallen in alongside the Scythopolitans—so, suffer
having put their shared ancestry2866 in second place to their own safety—they [the Judeans
of Scythopolis] joined battle2867 against their compatriots.2868 467 But the very [quality
of] extreme eagerness2869 also rendered them suspect. The Scythopolitans, namely, had
become anxious that they might make an attempt on the city at night and, by means of a
great calamity2870 of their [doing], furnish a defense for themselves to their own [people]
concerning their “defection.”2871 So they [the Scythopolitans] directed them, if they were
wanting* to guarantee their unity of purpose, and demonstrate their trustworthiness2872
to people of other nations,2873 to move together with their families into the grove.2874 468

[middle]). The other MSS (VRC) have µετάστασιν ἴασι at Ant. 18.324, with χωρέω in the same sentence).
2868
(“removal, upheaval, change against . . .”). All modern Josephus’ Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will express great
editors (Niese, Thackeray, Pelletier, Vitucci, M-B), how- indignation at this alignment with “the Greeks” against
ever, forego both of these to follow Eusebius (Hist. eccl. the Judeans (7.364-65)—in spite of having confessed to
2.26.2) with ἀνάτασιν (“tension, straining” or “holding killing compatriots himself (7.332). Josephus will express
out, threat” against or over the people or things being similar outrage at Life 26 (“sacrilegious to us”; see BJP
threatened). One reason to prefer Eusebius’ reading is 9 and note). Note also War ’s repeated condemnation of
that it matches a pattern in Josephus: killing was bad, killing fellow-Judeans, an activity closely connected with
but even worse was a resulting psychological state (fear, the stasis theme (1.10), at 1.659; 3.391; 6.109.
2869
dread, or tension; cf. 2.256; 7.104). Moreover, Josephus As often in War, Josephus makes a neuter substan-
may use a similar collocation at 1.214 (ἀπειλῇ καὶ tive from an adjective: τὸ λίαν πρόθυµον.
2870
ἀνατάσει), where ἀνατάσει has the support of MS C A programmatic term (συµφορά), enhancing the
and the Latin, though PAMLVR and Hegesippus prefer tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9;
ἀναστάσει there also. That example highlights the fact 2.286. It has recently been used (2.465).
2871
that, as the relatively unfamiliar word, ἀνάτασις has the See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39. The fear is,
advantage of being easiest to understand as the origi- then, that the Judeans inside, from feelings of guilt
nal—i.e., as a difficulty left by Josephus and changed about their alignment with the Scythopolitans, would
by later copyists to something more familiar; it is more turn against them at night and betray the city to the
difficult to imagine why they would subsitute something Judean attackers. They would then justify themselves to
difficult for a familiar and simple term. The best option, the outside Judeans by claiming that they had appeared
then, seems to be something like the translation here. But to support the Scythopolitans only in order to inflict seri-
since ἀνάτασις can also mean a “threat” (i.e., what is ous damage.
2872
extended, held out), the sense might also be “the threat Josephus substantivizes the neuter adjective with
because of what was being threatened” in a redundant article (τὸ . . . πιστόν). See further “loyalty” and note
formulation. at 2.476.
2862 2873
Lit. “while running down into/against” (κατα- Greek ἀλλοεθνής occurs only here in War,
τρέχοντες δὲ εἰς). Possibly “while overrunning Scytho- though 7 times in Antiquities. It is not found in Jose-
polis,” though that usage normally has the object in the phus’ classical models or contemporaries (Plutarch, Dio),
genitive. but appears among other ethnographical or “minority”
2863
See 2.458, where the Judeans ravage Scythopo- writers: fragments of Berosus, Hecataeus, Megasthenes;
lis. 2 Macc 4:6; 13 times each in Diodorus and Dionysius;
2864
Or “experienced,” assuming that the verb is Strabo (2.1.31; 11.2.2; 14.2.28); Philo (Spec. 3.29; Legat.
πειράω, though it might conceivably be πείρω, in which 183).
2874
case they “cleaved through” Judean enemies. That lan- Since this is a Greek city, the sense is probably
guage would recall Homer (Il. 24.8; Od. 8.183). “sacred grove”: a hallowed precinct devoted to a God.
2865
Possibly “in that place” (MSS MVRC παρ’ This is the usual meaning of ἄλσος, also in Josephus. At
ἐκείνη). 1.422-43 King Herod has donated these important fea-
2866
This word (συγγένεια) is cognate to “relative- tures of a polis to several cities in the region; perhaps the
slaughter” at 2.471 and “blood-relations” at 2.472. one at Scythopolis was also his donation. For the offen-
2867
Of the 9 occurrences of ὁµόσε in Josephus, all siveness of such places to Judeans, see Ant. 4.192; 8.318,
occur in the classical cliché used here: ὁµόσε χωρέω (or 336; 10.52. (For more neutral senses: 8.138; 16.142.)
344 book two

When they had done what had been ordered, without suspicion,2875 although the Scytho-
politans remained quiet for two days, baiting2876 their trust, on the third night—having
observed closely [to be sure that] that they were both unguarded and sleeping—they
butchered2877 them all. The number exceeded 13,000,2878 and they plundered everyone’s
possessions.2879
Simon, Judean (18.4) 469 Worthy of being narrated2880 is also the suffering2881 of Simon. Although
of Scythopolis he was the son of a certain Saoul, from rather distinguished [people],2882 and although
he excelled in vigor of body2883 and daring,2884 he misused both to the detriment of his
compatriots. 470 Namely, venturing out day after day,2885 he not only did away with many
of those Judeans who were against Scythopolis, but often routing them all, he single-
handedly became the deciding factor2886 in the battle.2887 471 Yet a penalty worthy of this
relative-slaughter2888 overtook* him. For when the Scythopolitans had surrounded those

If this is the meaning of the word, the Judeans’ test of does not appear to be suggesting that the Judeans of
loyalty is not simply that they remove themselves from Scythopolis should have assisted their compatriots in
mingling in the city, to preclude a fifth-column revolt, destroying the city, or opposed the Scythopolitans earlier
but that they must be willing to stay in a place devoted and faced death. The tragic ethos, indeed, seems to pre-
to the Scythopolitans’ Gods, but alien and offensive to clude the simple assessment of right and wrong. Perhaps
their own law and tradition. it is only Simon’s particularly energetic battles against
2875
Contrast the ongoing suspicion that Josephus Judean compatriots that mark him for retribution on a
attributes to the non-Judeans (2.463, 466, 560). heroic scale (below).
2876 2881
Although the verb δελεάζω is found occasionally This (πάθος) is one of many terms introduced
in classical authors (e.g., 1-3 times each in Herodotus, in Josephus’ prologue (1.9, 11 [“feelings”], 27 [“suffer-
Isocrates, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Polybius, Diodorus, ings” and calamities]; see notes) that create a tragic tone
Dionysius, Strabo), nearly half (31) of its 68 attestations for the work. In this story Josephus uses it to create a
before Josephus (who has it 7 times) come in Philo. This characteristic inclusio: it is also the second-last word (in
is another example of Josephus’ “Philonic” language—or, plural) at 2.476.
2882
since Plutarch will use it 13 times, of Philo’s marking a This is the same litotes (οὐκ ἀσήµων) that Jose-
new trend. The situation is similar for the cognate noun, phus uses of his own ancestry in Life 1.
2883
on which see the note at 2.54. This cliché (ῥώµῃ σώµατος), found elsewhere in
2877
Or “slaughtered, cut the throats of.” See the note Josephus (7.232, 384; Ant. 4.298; 17.273), turns up occa-
at 2.457. sionally in earlier authors; it is most conspicuous by far
2878
Life 26: “many myriads” (literally “tens of thou- in Diodorus (33 occurrences).
2884
sands,” though often simply “thousands”). See the note to “brazenness” (the same Greek
2879
The phrase διαρπάζω κτήσεις is characteristic word) at 2.108. At Ant. 4.298, Josephus’ Moses makes
(cf. 2.494, 509; 4.488; 6.202; Ant. 20.113; Life 77) of these (πάντων τῶν ῥώµῃ σωµάτων καὶ ψυχῆς εὐτολµίᾳ)
Josephus. Before his time it is attested only in Diodo- the qualifications for military service, glossing the Bible’s
rus, who uses it a remarkable 15 times in the preserved exclusion (Deut 20:8) of the “faint-hearted”; see Feld-
sections. This provides strong evidence for Diodorus’ man’s note ad loc. in BJP 3.
2885
influence on Josephus. Given that War has the adverb ὁσηµέραι only 7
Having expressed indignation at the Scythopolitan- times, its reappearance a few sentences below (2.489),
Judeans’ initial support for their fellow-citizens, Eleazar the only other instance in bk. 2, shows again Josephus’
son of Ya‘ir at Masada (7.365-66) will denounce what tendency to cluster his use of certain words.
2886
happened to them as payment for their misplaced loyalty See the note to “deciding factor in war” at 2.52.
2887
(or trust). See the note to “battle” at 2.464. Simon appears at
2880
The following story, told in tragic terms, concen- first as a sort of Homeric hero, like Ajax, fighting best in
trates many themes of the entire War: shedding the blood front of the line (Il. 11.569-71), but he will end up tragi-
of compatriots (as the rebels will later do in Jerusalem) cally slaughtering his own children, like the Heracles
is the most dreadful form of pollution, which can only of Euripides’ play, and then himself, like the Ajax of
lead to literal (as at Masada) or virtual (as in Jerusa- Sophocles’ play.
2888
lem) self-destruction. Such general moralizing seems The artificial expression συγγενικός φόνος (unat-
detached from the particular story at hand, for Josephus tested elsewhere) reflects the strangeness of the phenom-
book two 345

throughout the grove2889 and were shooting them down with spears,2890 he drew his sword
and, though he charged at none of the enemy, since he could see their never-ending2891
horde, instead he shouted out with great emotion:2892
472 I am suffering what is worthy for what I have done2893 on your side,2894 Scytho-
politans,2895 [along with all] who2896 have proven2897 our goodwill2898 towards you2899 by such
a great slaughter of blood-relations.2900 So then, to those for whom the foreign [element]
has been found untrustworthy, whereas the domestic [element] has been desecrated to the
extreme:2901 let us die2902 as under a curse,2903 by our own hands, for it is not fitting [for

enon. It is a particularly heinous form of the “Judean thopolitans,” but since it cannot easily do that, something
slaughter” predicted by Agrippa II for the Greek cities at like the bracketed phrase (as in Thackeray, LCL) must
2.391; see note there. The adjective is cognate to “shared be supplied.
2897
ancestry” at 2.466 and “blood-relations” at 2.472. MSS PA, in keeping with the relative pronoun
2889
See 2.467. “who” reading (see previous note), have this verb as
2890
This is the only explicit notice we receive of plural; strangely, so does L. The others, which read
the method by which large numbers of Judeans were “because,” in which case Simon is speaking of only his
“slaughtered, sacrificed, butchered” in confined spaces behavior, accordingly have a singular verb.
2898
(2.457, 461, 561). The scene, with thousands being See the note to “loyalty” at 2.476.
2899
killed by spears at a single event, is difficult to imagine Although the Greek has only πρὸς αὐτούς, with-
in practical terms. (How many assailants were neces- out identifying the person (and so it would otherwise
sary? At what range? Where were they positioned?) be read as 3rd person), Latin and Hegesippus have vos
2891
See the note at 2.218. and vobis (“you”), respectively; something of the sort is
2892
The adverb ἐκπαθῶς (which picks up the head- necessary for the sense.
2900
word “suffering” at 2.469 and links with the cognate See “relative-slaughter” and note in the preced-
verb “suffering” that follows) occurs only here in Jose- ing section.
2901
phus; it is scarcely attested otherwise (before him only This phrase (εἰς ἔσχατα) is bracketed in Niese’s
in Teles, Pen. plout. 35; after him, a few times in the text because it is not found in two of the better MSS
2nd-3rd centuries). The main user of the cognate adjective (PA), and M has it in the singular.
2902
(cf. Ant. 15.28; 16.208) is Polybius (1.1.6, 7.8; 4.58.1; The singular form of the verb (“let me die”) has
8.9.4; 16.23.5), who is likely Josephus’ inspiration for by far the better attestation (MSS PAMVRC, Hegesippus
this, as for much else. The adjective is only significantly moriar). Only MS L gives a misspelled (as present indic-
attested otherwise from Josephus’ time onward (Plutarch, ative) plural. That variation apparently leads Niese and
Appian, Athenaeus). Thackeray to favor it as the more difficult reading, which
2893
This is the second example (see the note to “suf- would also fit best with “to/for those” at the beginning
fered” at 2.333) of War ’s frequent juxtaposition of doing of the sentence. If the text should be plural, it refers to
(or committing) and suffering (δράω + πάσχω)—the the other Scythopolitan Judeans dying all around Simon,
same thing that one perpetrated (in tragic reversal or and perhaps anticipates the deaths of his family (2.475);
“poetic justice”) or its consequence. the rest of the sentence then also needs to be plural (as
2894
Although the Greek MSS all have καθ᾿ ὑµῶν, Niese and Thackeray). Although I have followed the plu-
which is printed by Niese and M-B and given a pos- ral reading, I do so without confidence.
2903
sible translation here (perhaps a difficult “against you” I.e., from the divine, because of pollution caused
or possibly “from your side”), its awkward sense and its by bloodshed. This is the only occurrence of ἐναγής
omission by the Latin and Hegesippus lead Thackeray in War (cf. 4.163 for a cognate noun; the adjective is
and Pelletier to omit it. also at Ant. 7.208; 9.226). One of the archetypes of such
2895
What follows in this sentence is very uncertain, pollution acquired through killing one’s kin, involving
because of textual difficulties compounded by interpreta- this adjective, was the Athenian Megacles’ murder of
tive problems. the would-be tyrant Cylon’s followers in the 7th cent.
2896
MSS PA have οἵ, whereas MLVRC (reflected in BCE, though they had claimed the sanctuary of an
Latin and Hegesippus) offer ὅτι (“because”), which how- altar. Herodotus 1.61 relates that the Athenian aristocrat
ever seems easier to explain as a later effort at improve- Pisistratus would not produce children with his wife, the
ment. One’s choice here governs what precedes and what great-granddaughter of Megacles, because of the belief
follows. The relative pronoun should look back to “Scy- that her (Alcmeonid) family remained “under a curse”;
346 book two

us to die] by those of the enemy.2904 473 This should be at the same time both a worthy
penalty, in view of my pollution,2905 and praise for manly courage, in order that none of my
adversaries might boast about having butchered me,2906 or brag at my having fallen.2907
474 After saying these things, with eyes that were full of pity2908 but also enraged,2909
he carefully surveyed* his own family: he had a wife, children, and elderly parents. 475
First he drew up his father by his grey hair and thrust him through* with his sword; after
him, the mother—quite willingly;2910 and after these, both the wife and the children,2911
each one almost coming out to greet the sword and hurrying to anticipate the enemy. 476
After going through all of his family, and standing in plain view2912 on their bodies, he
raised up his right hand so as to conceal it from no one and completely sank2913 his sword
into his own butchery:2914 although a youth worthy of pity2915 on account of his strength of
body2916 and determination of soul,2917 because of his loyalty2918 toward foreigners having
met the consequent suffering.2919
(18.5) 477 In addition to this loss2920 at Scythopolis, each of the remaining cities2921 rose

cf. Herodotus 5.70; Thucydides 1.126. βαπτίζω, which normally (cf. the next occurrence,
2904
This speech clearly anticipates the first part of 2.556) refers to the immersion or sinking of something
Eleazar’s speech at Masada: after confessing the wrongs in water or another liquid. This baptism in blood might
madly committed against compatriots, he recommends is highly resonant, given the language of sacrifice around
self-destruction as the only way out (7.332-33). it. Perhaps it serves as a kind of atonement; for death
2905
See “under a curse” in this section and the notes as atonement in rabbinic thought, see Schechter 1961:
to pollution language, which is central to War’s narrative, 304-10.
2914
at 2.132, 210, 424; to this noun at 2.455. See the note to this charged language at 2.197.
2906 2915
Lit. “at my butchery” (or “sacrifice, slaughter, See the note just above, at 2.474.
2916
slaying”); the language is vivid and shocking, with See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase
strong cultic-sacrificial connotations. See the notes to at 2.268.
2917
“butchery” at 2.197 and “butchered” at 2.30; further, This is the first appearance of a characteristic
2.476. phrase in War, ψυχῆς παράστηµα (also 2.580, 588; 4.34,
2907
See the note to “enemy” in the preceding section: 193; 6.13, 62, 81), equivalent to ψυχῆς παράστασις (cf.
a similar logic drives Eleazar’s speech at Masada, as he the chiasm at 2.580). Before Josephus, Diodorus is the
wishes to prevent the Romans from taking any credit for heaviest attested user of this language—likewise alter-
killing his comrades (7.332-36). nating the synonyms (1.17.2; 117.11.4, 21.2; 33.16.2;
2908
Pity and fear were identified by Aristotle (cf. 37.21.1; cf. Dionysius, Dem. 22).
2918
Poet. 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12) as the Or “faithfulness toward, trust in” (πρὸς ἀλλο-
hallmarks of tragedy; such language here and at 2.476 φύλους πίστις). At 2.467 the Scythopolitans have
enhances War ’s tragic ethos. Note the programmatic use demanded a proof of Judean trustworthiness, on the
of “pity” at War 1.10 and the note to “compassion” at same root (τὸ . . . πιστόν). At 2.472 Simon has ironically
1.12. protested his demonstrated good will (εὔνοια) toward
2909
This jolting combination of opposite emotions these foreigners. At 7.365 Eleazar ben Ya‘ir will take the
(ἐλεοῦσιν ἅµα καὶ τεθυµωµένοις), evoking utter help- same ironic tone, citing both qualities: “[the Judeans’]
lessness, anticipates the same construction at 2.549 good will and loyalty towards those people certainly ben-
below. efited them!” That summary statement incidentally helps
2910
Josephus uses litotes (“not unwilling”). to confirm the compositional unity of War .
2911 2919
The murder-suicide scene with one’s own family Josephus thus completes the inclusio begun with
members, especially women and children (see the note this word in the introduction to Simon’s story at 2.469
at 2.192), anticipates War’s final tragic act at Masada (see note there).
2920
(7.362, 380-93). See the note to this word at 2.51.
2912 2921
See the note to this phrase at 2.344. Apparently the remaining cities of Syria (as
2913
The Greek (εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σφαγὴν ἐβάπτισεν 2.478), though in the next paragraph Josephus will indi-
τὸ ξίφος) is shocking, with the vividness of the verb cate important exceptions. Possibly he means “the cities,
book two 347

up against its own Judeans: the Ascalonites2922 did away with 2,500, the Ptolemeans2923
2,000—and they confined2924 quite a few.2925 478 The Tyrians2926 also dispatched2927 large
numbers,2928 though they kept guard over most2929 of them as detainees.2930 Both Hippenes
and Gadarenes2931 likewise got rid of2932 the bolder ones,2933 whereas they held the more
timid2934 in custody, as did the remaining cities of Syria,2935 each according to whether it
had feelings of hatred or dread2936 against its Judean [element].2937
479 Only the Antiochenes, Sidonians, and Apameans2938 spared those residing with Antioch, Sidon,
them2939 and did not support2940 either doing away with or confining2941 certain of the Apamea,
Gerasa spare
Judeans

other than Scythopolis (just described), that had been away with its resident Judeans, though [those Judeans]
targets of the Judean raids.” All the cities mentioned here were more hostile to us than to the Romans!”
2936
were named as Judean targets—the Tyrians indirectly Although here Josephus appears to align the cit-
via their possession of Kadasa—following the Caesar- ies in groups, somewhat artificially, according to their
ean massacre (2.458-60). Josephus has thus created a hatred or dread of Judeans, at 2.461 he has more art-
ring composition, around the central story of Simon in fully combined the two emotions among and within the
Scythopolis (also one of the cities first attacked), to tell same cities.
2937
now of the cities’ revenge against their internal Judean This is the first of 4 occurrences of τὸ Ἰουδαϊκόν
populations. in this section (also 2.487, 492, 495). As Schwartz (2005:
2922
See the note to “Ascalon” at 2.98. Ascalon was 76) observes, the expression refers to the Judeans as an
one of the Greek cities attacked and burned by the ethnic or national group (cf. 1.88, 93), particularly as a
Judeans; see 2.459. minority community in non-Judean cities (cf. 2.105). The
2923
See the note to “Ptolemais” at 2.67. Ptolemais was form is rare in Antiquities, occurring only in experimen-
attacked by the Judeans at 2.459. tal “Thucydidean” passages of Ant. 17-19 (17.41; 18.83).
2924
See the note to “detainees” at 2.4. Schwartz does not observe that the context of reprisals
2925
Josephus uses litotes (“not a few”). within Greek cities here invites such a usage, and that
2926
At 2.459 the Judeans have struck at the Tyrian the particular form (neuter substantive formed from the
possession of Kadasa. adjective or participle) is typical of War ’s style (esp. in
2927
This is one of Josephus’ rarer euphemisms for the prologue; cf. 1.4-5), which considerations appear to
killing; see the note at 2.242. work against his proposal that Josephus’ usage changes
2928
See the note to this phrase, which will now appear (to a more “religious” conception) in his later works.
2938
more frequently (2.490, 509, 521, 535, 541), at 2.55. These 3 cities, in contrast to those mentioned in
2929
Possibly “more, many, the majority”: the MSS the preceding paragraph (see note to “cities” at 2.477),
give slightly different readings. were very far from Judea and presumably this is a reason
2930
See the note to this word at 2.4. why they and their possessions had not been targets of
2931
These two are mentioned together as Judean tar- the Judean raids (2.458-60). Apamea and Antioch both
gets (possibly, however, it was their dependent villages sat on the Orontes River in the far N of the Syrian prov-
that suffered) at 2.459. ince. Apameans do not otherwise appear in War , though
2932
See the note at 2.463: another euphemism for their city has been mentioned in 1.216-19. Although the
killing. Antiochenes are said to be calm at this point, Josephus
2933
See the notes at 2.238, 267. will later report at length a serious campaign against their
2934
Or “the more fearful.” Judean population, initiated soon after Vespasian’s arrival
2935
This is an important explanation, suggesting that in the region—by a renegade Judean anxious to prove his
the Syrian cities, after being attacked by Judean groups bona fides—and culminating with an unsuccessful appeal
from outside (2.458-59), mainly acted with a degree of to Titus after the war that the Judeans of Antioch be
restraint: they executed internal Judeans who seemed expelled (7.41-62, 100-111). Sidon (see note at 2.101),
hostile, but incarcerated those who seemed to be no some 40 km (25 miles) further up the coast from Tyre
threat. This fits a well-documented pattern of the intern- (itself already beyond the reach of Judean raids), was a
ment of aliens during times of conflict (e.g., in Britain, large city deep inside the Syrian province.
2939
Canada, the U.S., and Australia during the world wars). See the note to “settle” (the same verb) at
Josephus will have Eleazar son of Ya‘ir ignore such 2.124.
2940
qualifications when he declares (7.367): “For you know This construction is similar, also contextually, to
that, of the cities in Syria, there is not one that did not do “stood quite ready” at 2.463.
348 book two

Judeans, quite possibly because on account of their own throng they disregarded their
[potential] for such commotion,2942 but more than that, it seems to me at least,2943 out of
compassion2944 for those who, they could see, were engaged in no revolutionary activity.2945
480 The Gerasenes not only did nothing to offend2946 those who had decided to remain
where they were, but they escorted all the way to the borders2947 those who had expressed
a desire to emigrate.
(18.6) 481 A plot materialized against the Judeans also in Agrippa’s kingdom.2948 He
himself had gone to Cestius Gallus in Antiocheia,2949 and to administer his affairs he had
left behind one of his companions2950 by the name of Noarus,2951 related by ancestry to
King Soaemus.2952 482 Now men from Batanea2953 arrived, seventy in number,2954 the most

2941
For the two options, see 2.477. For the latter word at Berytus (Beirut), providing the occasion for Varus’
see the note to “detainees” at 2.4. (here Noarus’) misdeeds.
2942 2950
This notice incidentally confirms what Josephus See the note at 2.334.
2951
has emphasized: that the other Syrian cities acted against Whereas War (also 2.483) names him thus
their Judean populations largely from a fear of internal (Νόαρος) here, Life gives him the Latinate moniker
collaboration with external Judean attackers (2.458-61, “Varus” (Οὔαρος; cf. War 2.247); on this and other dif-
463). The cities named here were too large and remote ferences, see the notes at Life 48-52 in BJP 9. Although
to have such serious worries (though see the case of Josephus does not make a connection with the tetrarch
Antioch at 7.41-62). “Varus” of 2.247 above, it appears that he is the same
2943
See the note to this distinctive Josephan phrase person. So: Noarus/Varus inherited the tetrarchy of Itu-
at 2.151. rea, around Mt. Lebanon, that had been given by Gaius
2944
See the note to this keyword at 1.12. Caligula to his father “King” Soaemus in 38 CE (Taci-
2945
In the case of Antioch (7.41-65) Josephus will tus, Ann. 12.23; Dio 59.12.2; cf. Life 52); he governed
again stress that the Judean population was entirely it from the latter’s death in 49 CE, until Claudius gave
peaceful, though maliciously accused by a traitor and it to Agrippa II in 53 CE (War 2.247). This background
then because of a fire in the city. explains both Agrippa’s willingness to entrust Noarus
2946
The Gerasenes are thus anomalous: although with administrative responsibilities during his absence
among the cities ravaged by the Judean raiders (2.458), and the man’s alleged openness to contemplate treachery
they are the only ones to emphatically reject retaliation. against Agrippa, on the basis of his own frustrated royal
Although one might be tempted to speculate about an claims (so Life 48-52).
2952
ancestral connection with Essenes (see note to Essaeus Since Josephus has not mentioned this king before,
at 2.113), we have no evidence whatsoever of either the he either assumes audience knowledge or includes a
historical Gerasenes’ mindset or what Josephus might detail of no value, perhaps for local color. Noarus (see
have had in mind in making this exception. previous note) was son and heir of the Soaemus who had
2947
MSS PMV appear confused, along with the cor- been tetrarch of Libanus (Mt. Lebanon) in Iturea, d. 49
rections of AL, in offering the genitive plural of either CE; this is the Soaemus with whom Josephus connects
“hill” (ὄρος), which is plausible, or “whey, curd” (ὀρός), Varus (Noarus) in the parallel passage at Life 52, and
which is not. Latin and ps-Hegesippan fines confirms he may be the figure in view here (so M-B). Although
MSS RC in reading ὅρων from ὅρος (“border, bound- that ruler was not technically a “king,” Tacitus (Ann.
ary”). 12.23) calls him rex; so this label is not decisive. It is
2948
Or “sovereignty, jurisdiction” (βασιλεία). For possible, however, that Josephus has in mind here the
Agrippa’s territories see 2.223, 247, 252 with notes. living Soaemus, King of Emesa (so Thackeray in LCL),
The following story, in an entirely different context— a territory not far N of Libanus. This king is soon to
the fallout from Philip b. Iacimus’ survival of his mis- play a significant role as a war-time ally of Rome and
sion to Jerusalem (cf. 2.421, 556), which is passed over King Agrippa (see 2.501 and note; 3.68), and so might
in War —and with significantly different details, will be make a better candidate for the object of Agrippa’s favor
elaborated at Life 48-61; see the following notes. in preserving Noarus (2.483)—if he too was Noarus’
2949
Josephus here anticipates 2.499-502: Cestius’ relative. Josephus may also have confused the names or
decision to take the field against restive Judeans, evi- deliberately obfuscated an insignificant point.
2953
dently after consultation with King Agrippa, who con- Heir of biblical Bashan, E/NE of the Golan (Gaul-
tributes units to the Roman force. Contrast Life 49, anitis), Batanea was the region in which King Herod had
where the king and Berenice have gone to meet Cestius settled Judeans from Babylonia as a bulwark against ban-
book two 349

highly esteemed of the citizens by reason of ancestry and shrewdness,2955 requesting an

army so that if there should be some commotion2956 also involving them,2957 they would
have a guard strong enough to prevent the attackers.2958 483 But Noarus dispatched some Treachery
of the royal armed soldiers by night2959 and did away with* all these2960 [men]. He really of Noarus in
Agrippa’s
was ruining2961 the kingdom: he had ventured this deed without Agrippa’s knowledge, kingdom. Life
but had opted to behave impiously against compatriots because of an exorbitant love of 48
money.2962 And he continued acting savagely against the nation,2963 violating the law,2964
until Agrippa found out2965 and, though ashamed to do away with him on account of
Soaemus,2966 ended his procuratorship.2967
484 Now the insurgents,2968 after taking possession of a certain fortress—although it
was* called Cyprus,2969 it was sitting above2970 Hierichous [Jericho]2971—butchered the
guards2972 and tore down2973 its defenses2974 to the ground. 485 During those same days

dits in the rugged territory of Trachonitis further N/NE is unattested in other authors. In this case, the money
(Ant. 17.23-31). These talented soldiers have been led motive may simply be a device for sparing Josephus the
by Philip ben Iacimus’ grandfather and father, from the description of a much more complicated situation, such
time of Herod to that of Agrippa II. According to the Life as the coup attempt (through the removal of Philip ben
parallel (48-61), Varus’ mistreatment of the Bataneans Iacimus’ support group) described in Life 49-61.
2963
was connected with his attempt to undermine Philip, one I.e., the Judean people (ἔθνος).
2964
of King Agrippa’s military mainstays. See the note to this phrase at 2.15. This is the last
2954
Life 54-57 has Varus dispatch 12 Judean elders occurrence of παρανοµέω in bk. 2.
2965
from Caesarea to Batanean Ecbatana, mischievously Life 61 alleges that Agrippa discovered instead
instructing them to send 70 of their leading men to defend that Varus was planning to do away with the Judeans of
themselves against charges of revolt against Agrippa. Caesarea “in a single day”; but in this version (2.457
2955
Although unattested in other ancient Greek lit- above) the Judean community of Caesarea has already
erature, this pair of virtues appears in the language of been destroyed.
2966
Josephus himself at Life 191-92, 278. Josephus thus creates an inclusio, neatly con-
2956
See the note to this key word (15 of 16 occur- cluding the brief episode that began with a reference to
rences in Josephus are in War ’s 7 volumes) at 1.4. Soaemus (2.481); see the note there. Josephus appears to
2957
I.e., given the attacks on Judean communities mean either that Agrippa does not wish to offend his ally
nearby, described in the preceding paragraphs. Soaemus, the King of Emesa, which seems inherently
2958
This is a completely different motive from that more likely, or possibly that he takes pity on Noarus
alleged at Life 56-57: to defend their community against because of his father Soaemus and his loss of the father’s
charges of rebellion. That the motive given here fits this territory.
2967
context so well illustrates Josephus’ breath-taking free- Life 61 has Agrippa replace Varus with one
dom to reconfigure the narrative according to present Aequus Modius (Lit. “fair measure”).
2968
needs. See the note to this key word at 1.10.
2959 2969
According to Life 57, by contrast: Varus himself At 1.417 (cf. Ant. 16.143) Josephus has illustrated
led a royal force to meet the delegates as they approached King Herod’s filial piety by noting his construction of
Caesarea, killed both the Caesarean delegates and the this walled fortress, which excelled in both strength and
Batanean principal men, and proceeded towards Bata- beauty, in honor of his mother Cyprus, of distinguished
nea. Nabatean lineage (on whom see 1.181; Ant. 14.121;
2960
Josephus’ Greek employs hyperbaton to build a the name was often found thereafter among Herodian
sense of outrage. Although Life 57 also has Varus’ force women). Josephus’ construction (“Although . . .”) seems
kill all the men, Life 58 has one escape to Ecbatana to acknowledge the more famous island-province.
2970
and warn the community to flee to the fortress-town of See the note to “from above” (same word) at
Gamala in the Golan. 2.47.
2961 2971
Or “destroying”; see the note at 2.11. See the note at 2.257.
2962 2972
See the note at 2.295: the only other occurrence Or “cut the guards’ throats.” See the notes at 2.30
of φιλαργυρία in Josephus. Since the noun is already an and 2.197.
2973
obvious vice, easily attributed to enemies (e.g., Polybius All 15 occurrences of καταρρίπτω in Josephus
18.55.1; 29.8.10; 29.9.12), it does not normally need are in War 1-6. This is a high concentration, since the
an adjective describing excess—and so this collocation compound verb has only 15 attestations in all Greek lit-
350 book two

also the mob of Judeans in Machaerus2975 persuaded the Romans who were guarding it
to abandon the fortress and hand it over to themselves. 486 They [the Romans], having
been wary2976 of a removal by force,2977 agreed to terms* with them: they would march out
under the protection of a truce.2978 After receiving the assurances, they handed over* the
fortress, which very [site] the Machaerites began to hold securely, asserting their control
with a guard unit.2979
The Judeans of (18.7) 487 Now in Alexandreia2980 there was ongoing civil strife2981 among the natives2982
Alexandria toward the Judean [element]2983—ever since Alexander,2984 after he had used very eager
Judeans2985 against the Egyptians,2986 gave as a reward2987 for their alliance the [privilege

erature before Josephus (absent from Homer, Herodotus, of 38 CE and immediately following were an aberra-
Thucydides, Polybius, Dionysius); Diodorus accounts for tion from the “predominantly positive” experience of
a third of those earlier occurrences, and Plutarch has the Judeans in Alexandria, and that this conflict in 66 “need
word only once. not reflect any long-standing enmity” (2002: 83). The
2974
For these formidable defenses, see 1.417. difference of perspective may not by its nature be sus-
2975
Cf. Appendix A to BJP 1a. Machaerus, mentioned ceptible of resolution: it is entirely possible for minor-
only here in War 2, was a remarkable natural fortress of ity communities to be doing well in many respects and
a mountain, only about 6.5 km (4 miles) E of the Dead still feel vulnerable, or on the other hand for numerous
Sea, inland from coastal Callirhoe to its NW, but tower- incidents of civil strife and violence, which might seem
ing some 1100 m (3600 ft) above the lake. In 7.163-209 terrifying to outsiders, to leave some urban residents
Josephus will describe the site in some detail, including a unmoved and still feeling entirely secure.
2982
history of its occupation and fortification (by Alexander Or “the people from the region, locals” (ἐπιχώ-
Janneus and later Herod), as context for his account of ριοι).
2983
its capture by Lucilius Bassus in 72 CE. After Herod’s See the note at 2.478.
2984
death, the site had become part of Antipas’ tetrarchy— Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE), who founded
and the reported location of John the Baptist’s execution Alexandria in 332/31 BCE before returning N to cross
(Ant. 18.119). the Euphrates and pursue his famous eastern campaigns.
2976
The verb εὐλαβέοµαι appears only here in War , At Apion 2.35-37, 42-43 Josephus will assert even more
though several times later in Josephus. vigorously that Alexander settled Judeans in his city,
2977
This caution has been amply justified in the nar- mentioning letters from Alexander in support (2.35, 37,
rative by the events described at 2.437, 450-52; cf. the 42, 72). There is some tension, however, with his claim
case of Cyprus in 2.484. at Ant. 12.8 that it was Ptolemy I Soter who, in captur-
2978
This is the last of 3 uses of this adjective, all in ing Jerusalem and taking many captives, used Judeans
close proximity, in War ; see the note at 2.437. as garrison soldiers throughout Egypt and settled oth-
2979
This is a fateful moment, creating a strong center ers in the capital, making them “equal citizens” with
of Judean resistance (along with Masada) until its siege the Macedonians there (see note to “equal footing” in
and capture in 72 CE by Lucilius Bassus: 7.190-209. this section). But there Josephus is closely following
2980
See the notes to this major city at 2.309 and 385. Ps-Aristeas 13, which makes the same claim for Ptolemy
For the Judean (normally “Jewish”) community in Alex- I and relates (§ 9) that Ptolemy II released more than
andria, see Stuart Jones 1926; Bell 1941; Wolfson 1944; 100,000 Judean slaves. Since Alexander-related legends
Tcherikover, CPJ (1957) 1.1-111; Kasher 1985; Mélèze- and fictional documents apparently abounded in Jose-
Modrzejewski 1995: 161-83; Barclay 1996: 19-216; phus’ time (cf. the story at Ant. 11.329-39), one may
Alston 1997; Honigman 1997; Gruen 2002: 54-83, and easily imagine that Josephus simply believed (without
relevant sections of Harris and Ruffini 2004. evidence) that the great king had settled Judeans in the
2981
See the notes to this keyword at 1.10 and 2.418: city and written letters to that effect. Judeans are reliably
this is another example of στάσις being led by one party attested in Alexandria, by epitaphs (some in Aramaic and
only (thus, neither factionalism nor sedition). The ongo- Hebrew), from the “early Ptolemaic” period; cf. Horbury
ing nature of the civil strife in Alexandria, reiterated by and Noy 1992: nos. 1-8. For full critical discussion see
Josephus at 2.489 (also Apion 2.32, 70) and echoed by Barclay 1996: 27-34 and BJP 10 ad Apion 2.35-43.
2985
Philo (Legat. 120, 170 [Gaius’ advisor Helicon is said The superlative προθυµοτάτοις . . . Ἰουδαίοις
to have been reared in it from the cradle]), is doubted could mean that Alexander allegedly chose the most
by Gruen (2002: 54-83), who contends that the troubles energetic Judeans or (perhaps more likely) that he chose
book two 351

of] settling2988 in the city on an equal footing2989 with the Greeks.2990 488 This honor for

the Judeans because they were as a group the most spir- The question of Judean political status in Alexan-
ited in relation to others. dria has been the subject of careful analysis and debate
2986
Such a campaign by Alexander, using Judeans (see e.g. the works cited in the note to “Alexandreia” at
against Egyptians, is unattested outside Josephus. But 2.487); it is tied up with larger debates about Alexandrian
the traditional hostility he alleges between the two citizenship generally, in connection with ambiguous ter-
peoples—evidenced by texts from the biblical Exodus minology used by the sources (Ἀλεξανδρεύς, ἀστοί/
through Philo (e.g., Legat. 162-70) and the Wisdom of ἀσταί, πολίται), the precise relationship between the
Solomon (12-13) in addition to his Apion (e.g., 1.70, gymnasium/ephebate and Alexandrian citizenship, the
223-27; 2.137-43)—along with the stereotypical Roman rhetorical tendencies of both literary sources and some
prejudice against Egypt from the time of Marc Antony, papyri, and the problem of the lines between cultural
would no doubt have made the scenario of Judeans and political-citizenship claims. On all these matters,
eagerly assisting Alexander, if Josephus had heard of see Delia 1991.
this in traditional stories, both plausible to him and worth For our purposes, the main points are now clear
mentioning here. enough. Both Greek officials and Roman authorities
2987
The language here (τὸ γέρας ἔδωκεν) anticipates were exercised to define and limit the citizen body of
Apion 2.42, where Alexander rewards the Judeans for Alexandria, not least because citizens were exempt from
their manly virtue and loyalty; it also supports basic the poll tax. Acquisition of citizenship was normally only
themes in War (see Introduction). by inheritance from citizen parents, and one’s credentials
2988
See the note to “settle” at 2.124 (µετοικέω): the were subject to scrutiny upon reaching the age of major-
sense is of “living alongside”—as a foreign or alien resi- ity (viz. 14); enrollment in tribe (phyla) and deme, the
dent. mark and proof of citizenship, followed at 18. Citizen-
2989
The troublesome text might conceivably reflect ship grants, which would have required either imperial
copyists’ awareness of conflicting evidence for Judean beneficence or a vote of the entire citizenry, were rare:
status in Alexandria (see following note), or perhaps Apion (cf. Apion 2.28-32, with commentary by Barclay
their (Christian) animosity toward the notion. MSS PA in BJP 10) is the only known Egyptian to have received
have forms of a non-word, ἰσουµοῖρα. Latin has ius the grant (cf. Tcherikover in CPJ 1.59-62; Delia 1991:
urbis aequale. MSS MLVRC, followed by Naber, offer 30-62).
ἰσοτιµία (“equal honor, status”). Although that reads Philo insists that “we are Alexandrians” (Legat. 194)
well, it would not explain the garbled reading of MSS and his embassy to Gaius hopes to clarify Judean “citi-
PA—honored by Niese’s printing of an obelized ἴσου zenship” (Legat. 349), though both terms could be under-
µοίρας—which is perhaps why Destinon conjectured stood as distinct from citizenship in the Greek polis.
ἰσοµοιρία (“equal share”). Although this would be that Josephus obfuscates the matter, whether intentionally
word’s only occurrence in Josephus, it is otherwise well or through faulty understanding, with his insistence on
attested (e.g., Thucydides 7.75.6; Xenophon, Cyr, 2.2.21, Judean equality (as here): at Ant. 14.188, where a bronze
22; Aristotle, Mund. 396b; Ath. pol. 12.3; Dionysius, stele in the city authorized by Julius Caesar is supposed
Ant. rom. 7.19.2, 28.3; 8.72.3; Plutarch, Thes. 24.2; Dion to declare that Judeans are “citizens in Alexandreia”; in
38.5; Mor. [Apopth. Lac.] 226e); it is followed by Thack- Apion 2.32-42, where he implies that Judeans are “Alex-
eray (LCL), M-B, Vitucci, and Pelletier. By itself, how- andrians” with a citizenship like that of Apion’s own; and
ever, ἰσοµοιρία does not have a political, much less a at Ant. 19.280-85, where he purports to cite Claudius
technical sense (contrast the also problematic but clearer referring to something like equality of citizenship (ἴσης
ἰσοπολιτεία, on which see the note to “theirs” at 2.266); πολιτείας). Apropos of the last, we fortunately have a
the context must clarify a political sense (as here and papyrus copy of Claudius’ letter (CPJ 153), in which the
Plutarch, Dion 38.5), though the claim remains vague. princeps tartly declares that although the Judeans enjoy
2990
Although Josephus can distinguish Greeks from much that is their own, even “an abundance of all good
Macedonians in Alexandria (Apion 2.70), he seems con- things,” they reside in Alexandria as a city that is not
fused about the significance of the latter term (see the theirs; they have no right to intrude into games presided
note later in this section). The “Greeks” here are the over by gymnasium officials.
normally gymnasium-educated citizens of Alexandria. The general situation therefore seems clear: Judeans
Cf. 7.44, where Josephus gives the Judeans of the 3rd were not Alexandrian citizens, though citizenship might
major city of the empire, Antioch, an equal share (ἐξ have been possible for individuals from élite families of
ἴσου τῆς πόλεως τοῖς Ἕλλησι µετέχειν). long residence who satisfied the requirements (cf. some
352 book two

them endured with the Successors,2991 who also marked off for them a place of their
own,2992 so that they might maintain their regimen2993 more purely with less of the for-
eigners’ intermingling,2994 and they permitted them to use the title2995 “Macedonians.”2996
And after the Romans took possession of Egypt,2997 neither the first Caesar2998 nor any

members of Philo’s family, and the Helenos papyrus that military units in various jurisdictions were some-
[CPJ 151]; cf. Wolfson 1944). Judeans whose families times called “Macedonian” (War 5.460-65, where a
had long lived in Alexandria, however, belonged to a joke is made on the difference between the Macedonian
prominent community that enjoyed the free exercise of name and the sad reality of a unit; cf. also the honorary
its own communal laws and traditions. They were repre- use of “Thracian” for military units), and papyri reveal
sented at first by an ethnarch and then, when one of these Judeans in Alexandria in the late 1st century BCE identi-
died in 10-12 CE, by a gerousia (Philo, Flacc. 74). fying themselves “Macedonians” (CPJ 142-43), the best
2991
This is the standard term (οἱ διάδοχοι) for Alex- explanation of Josephus’ claim appears to be that some
ander’s successors in the various parts of his empire, who Judeans (had) belonged to such a prestigious military
contended with each other either for the entire empire unit, but Josephus misunderstood the title as a mark of
(at first) or for larger shares of it, though here the Ptole- distinction for all his compatriots in the city. Cf. Tcher-
maic dynasty based in Alexandria are the successors in ikover in CPJ 1.14-15; Delia 1991: 31 n. 115; Barclay
view. See the note to “Alexander” for relevant actions ad Apion 2.35-36 in BJP 10.
2997
by Ptolemy I and II. In 30 BCE, under Octavian (later Augustus): fol-
2992
Elaborated at 2.495 as “what is called the Delta” lowing the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium in
(cf. note there). See Barclay’s note to “waves” at Apion 31 and their deaths in Alexandria.
2998
2.33 in BJP 10, where Josephus cites Apion’s claim that This must be Julius Caesar, who lent his name via
the Judeans had settled “along a harborless shore.” Philo, Augustus to later principes, among whom it became a
a life-long resident of the city, is our crucial source for the title after Nero (cf. Suetonius’ biographies, which begin
1st century CE, and he claims (Flacc. 55) that the Judeans with Caesar; Matyszak 2006). Josephus tends to see
lived throughout the city’s 5 sectors, but so prominently him, rather than (Caesar) Augustus, as the founder of
in 2 of them that these were known as “Judean.” Alston the monarchical system in Rome (cf. Ant. 19.172-75,
(1997: 170) adduces funerary evidence for the general 184, 187-88). We can be nearly certain of Josephus’
intermingling of Judeans with the rest of the population. meaning here because at Ant. 14.188 he says explicitly
See further the note to “Delta” at 2.495. that Julius Caesar set up a bronze stele in Alexandria
2993
This is a term that War has used only of the Ess- declaring Judean citizenship there, and at Apion 2.37
enes thus far; see the note at 2.137. he speaks of a monument in Alexandria confirming
2994
Josephus uses the verb ἐπιµίσγω only here. Ear- (unspecified) rights given Judeans by “Caesar the Great”
lier relevant usage, concerning the spread of Egyptian (a term shown by Ant. 14.160 and Apion 2.61 [maximus
customs to the Judeans (ironically there including cir- Caesar, as distinct from Caesar Augustus] to indicate
cumcision), includes Herodotus 2.104.4 (also 1.185.7; the dictator).
2.151.2). It is also ironic that the famous Boule papy- Josephus may well have in mind the story he has told
rus from Alexandria (CPJ 150, 20-19 BCE) requests a at 1.190-94 of the extraordinary support rendered to the
council from Augustus precisely so that the Alexandrians Caesarian cause in Egypt by Herod’s father Antipater,
might preserve their citizen body and the ephebate free with a Judean force and the support of the high priest
of contamination from the uncultured and unschooled Hyrcanus, which also persuaded the Judeans of Leonto-
(thus un-Greek). polis to join Caesar (cf. the note to “Delta” at 2.495).
2995
See the note to “used the title of ” at 2.27. Apparently Josephus thinks that during his Alexandrian
2996
Cf. Apion 2.36: the Judeans’ tribe has “the title stay in 47 BCE Caesar issued the decree of Ant. 14.188,
‘the Macedonians,’” and Ant. 12.8 (Judeans had “equal in gratitude for this Judean support. Critics nowadays
rights” with the Macedonians). This appears to be an- generally agree, however, that Josephus has confused
other case of Josephus’ misunderstanding of Alexan- Caesar with his adopted son Augustus, for whom the
drian realia—along with the rights affirmed by Julius name Caesar was still crucial (esp. before 27 BCE), and
Caesar (in this section) and possibly even the nature of under whom Alexandrian-Judean rights were more likely
the “Delta” (2.495). Although the city had been founded to have been established by Rome (whereas Egypt was
by Macedonians in the 4th century BCE, “Macedonian” not yet a Roman possession in Caesar’s time). A survey
seems to have had no currency as a political, cultural, of issues and review of scolarship are in Pucci ben Zeev
or tribal division in Josephus’ time. Since we do know 1998: 26-31; cf. Barclay ad Apion 2.37 in BJP 10.
book two 353

of those [who came] after him undertook to diminish the honors of the Judeans from
Alexander.2999 489 Yet their engagements3000 with the Greeks were never-ending,3001 and
with the leaders punishing many from both sides,3002 day after day,3003 the civil strife was
aggravated3004 all the more.3005
490 Now at that time, since [matters] had also been stirred up among the others,3006 Violent clashes
the [matters] among those ones3007 became all the more inflamed.3008 In fact, while the between
Judeans and
Alexandrians were holding an assembly3009 concerning the embassy that they were about Alexandrians
to send off to Nero,3010 large numbers3011 of Judeans streamed together3012 into the amphi-
theater along with the Greeks.3013 491 When their foes recognized them, they immediately
began to shout out, saying “Enemies!” and “Spies!” Then they jumped up and laid hands
on them. Whereas the remainder were disposed of while trying to escape,3014 they arrested

2999 3010
The same claim (rights granted by Alexander or Since Josephus does not explain the purpose of
“the kings,” restated when Alexandria fell under Rome, this embassy we are left to infer that, like previous Alex-
preserved by successive Roman rulers) is made in Jose- andrian embassies in the 1st century CE (Philo, Legat.
phus’ version of Claudius’ letter (Ant. 19.280-85) and at 349-72; CPJ 155-56; cf. 157 [Acts of the Alexandrian
Apion 2.35-38. Martyrs]), it was planning an appeal to the emperor con-
3000
See the note to this word at 2.232. cerning the conflict with the Judeans just mentioned.
3001
See the note to “ongoing civil strife” at 2.487. Rather than trying to send their own counter-embassy
3002
This noteworthy even-handedness of the authori- as before, however (perhaps out of fear that it will do
ties recalls the actions of the forces under Felix during more harm than good, given the situation in Judea), the
the first stages of the conflict in Caesarea (2.267-70): Judeans apparently try to interfere with the Alexandrians’
though predisposed against the Judeans, according to plans.
3011
Josephus they arrested and punished the ringleaders on See the note to this phrase at 2.55.
3012
both sides, though this only aggravated the strife. See the note to this formulaic phrase in War 2
3003
See the note to this phrase (Greek adverb) at at 2.170.
3013
2.470. Josephus gives no clear indication of the Judean
3004
See the note to “provoked” at 2.8. intruders’ aims. Were they trying to assert their own
3005
Given that Josephus uses µᾶλλον only 18 times in “Alexandrian” identity by claiming a say in the sending
all of War 2, it is striking that he re-uses it in a similar of this embassy? From his language (whose relationship
construction in the next sentence here (cf. 304-5 for a to historical events remains unclear), the motive seems
similar re-use). to be disruptive. Ironically, on any reading this behavior
3006
Apparently meaning: in neighboring Judea (as the comes close to what Claudius forbids the Judeans to do
preceding paragraphs have described), especially in the (P. Lond. 1912, col. V. line 92): “not to intrude them-
Greek cities there. selves [µηδὲ ἐπισπαίειν as generally emended] into the
3007
Apparently: the Alexandrians. games presided over by gymnasiarchs and kosmetai”—
3008
This (µᾶλλον + ἐξάπτω) is a collocation that Jose- i.e., into activities open only to the gymnasium-educated
phus will use again at Ant. 5.249; 13.36; 15.420; 18.67; and Alexandrian citizens. The action and the violent
20.184; Life 298. Although often employed from Galen response to it both fit with the kinds of tensions we see
onward, especially from John Chrysostom, it is barely in Philo, the papyri, and the Acts of the Alexandrian
attested before Josephus’ time (Theophrastus, Hist. plant. Martyrs.
3014
5.9.7; Nicolaus, Frag. 101 line 704 [Müller]). Perhaps All Greek MSS have a form of διαφθείρω (“dis-
this usage was inspired by Nicolaus, though Josephus pose of ”), which implies a contrast between those who
does not use the passage in which he has the phrase. died in the confusion of trying to get away and the 3 who
3009
This is a full citizen assembly in the Alexandrian were captured and deliberately burned alive—as Whiston
amphitheater (2.490, 492). This and the similar descrip- read it in the 1730s. On the strength of the Latin dissi-
tion of an anti-Judean assembly in the theater of Antioch pati sunt, however, Naber (followed by Niese and other
(7.47) represent the only occurrences of ἐκκλησιάζω modern editors) conjectured that the verb was rather the
in War. It appears 7 times in Antiquities, but in post- similarly formed διασπείρω (here passive: “were scat-
Hasmonean times only of Greek or Roman assemblies in tered”), producing instead a contrast between those who
a theater or agora (Ant. 17.161; 19.158; cf. 4.302; 6.56; died and those who survived by fleeing (being scattered).
8.277; 10.93; 12.316). Although this solution would yield a clearer sense, the
354 book two

three men and dragged them off to incinerate3015 them while alive.
492 Now all the Judean [element]3016 was roused for the defense. At first they targeted
the Greeks with stones, but soon they grabbed torches and rushed to the amphitheater,
threatening to incinerate3017 to a man3018 the populace within. And this they would have
gone ahead and done if Tiberius Alexander,3019 the governor of the city, had not checked
their tempers. 493 In trying to recall them to their senses,3020 this [man] certainly did not
begin by a resort to weapons but, secretly sending in3021 the notables3022 to them, kept
appealing to desist and not to goad3023 the Roman army against their own [interests]. But
the factious,3024 while jeering at3025 this appeal, kept slandering Tiberius.3026
Tiberius (18.8) 494 And he, since he also fully understood that revolutionaries3027 would not
Alexander desist without great calamity,3028 he let loose on* them the two legions of Romans in the
deploys two
legions against city3029 and with them 2,0003030 soldiers from Libya,3031 who were present by chance, for
Judeans the ruin3032 of the Judeans. He permitted [them] not only to do away with [the Judeans],

3023
Latin does not seem to provide a strong enough basis for See the note at 2.316.
3024
rejecting the unanimous (and difficilior) Greek witness; See the note at 2.91.
3025
it could be explained by the desire of its author for the This is the only occurrence of the compound verb
more natural contrast. A larger number of deaths may καταχλευάζω in Josephus, and it is rarely attested oth-
also provide a better explanation for the Judean com- erwise, before his time only in Dionysius (Comp. verb.
munity’s immediate and forceful response. 25). The simple verb is much more common.
3015 3026
See the note at 2.58. More than half of the 25 If not calling him Tiberius Alexander, Josephus
occurrences of the dramatic verb καταφλέγω in Jose- otherwise calls the prefect by his Greek cognomen,
phus are in War 2. This is the first of 3 in rapid suc- Alexander (2.220, 223, 309, 497; 4.617; 6.242; Ant.
cession (2.492, 494), with 2 more following soon after 20.100-103). The shift here appears to be for the sake
(2.505, 509). of variety.
3016 3027
See the note at 2.478. See the note at 2.407.
3017 3028
See the notes at 2.58, 491. A programmatic term (συµφορά) in War and in
3018
The adjective αὔτανδρος is a Hellenistic con- bk. 2, enhancing the tragic tone; see the notes at 1.9;
struction, which is first used with any regularity (after 2.286. This entire progression of response, from sending
some fragmentary attestation) by Polybius, who has it 13 negotiators to unleashing the military, closely resembles
times. He or Diodorus (22 occurrences) is the most likely the situation faced by Archelaus in Jerusalem at the
inspiration for Josephus, who uses it 7 times (War 1.368; opening of this book (2.8-12); even the vocabulary is
3.293; 4.243, 302, 604; Ant. 14.275—enough to show very similar.
3029
that it is not a source vestige). If only 3 Judeans had These were the legiones III Cyrenaica and XXII
been killed (see the note to “escape” at 2.491), the word Deiotariana; see the note to “two legions” at 2.387. The
may be included to suggest that the Judean response was descendants of both will be used in the suppression of
excessive. Even if many had been killed, it was appar- the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 CE), during or after
ently somehow extreme: Josephus makes it the response which the latter appears to have faced destruction or
of “factious . . . revolutionaries” (2.493-94), with whom disbandment (Parker 1992: 162-63).
3030
the governor tries unsuccessfully to reason. So MSS PAM, whereas LVRC and Latin both
3019
The former prefect of Judea and the famous scion have 5,000—about the size of another legion. But the
of a prominent Judean-Alexandrian family. See 2.220 contrast with “legions of Romans” suggests auxiliary
and notes. forces. If the figure of 2,000 is correct, this would be
3020
See the note to this verb at 2.345, its only other the equivalent of about 4 standard cohorts.
3031
occurrence in War 2 (where it introduces Agrippa II’s In Roman parlance this is N Africa, from Egypt
great speech). to the Straits of Gibraltar; see the note at 2.115. Legio
3021
See the note at 2.8. III Augusta was the only legion in Africa during this
3022
This is Josephus’ standard language for the élite period, based in Ammaedara (mod. Tunisia); see notes
group of any city or nation; see the note to “powerful to 2.383.
3032
[men]” at 2.239. The phrase can also refer to a promi- This (ὄλεθρος) is a late addition to Josephus’ lexi-
nent figure’s friends (see the note to “acquaintances” at con of disaster, though he will use it often in the sequel
2.433). (15 times in War 2-7, 44 times in Antiquities-Life).
book two 355

but also to plunder their possessions3033 and incinerate3034 the houses. 495 They rushed
into what is called the Delta3035—that is where the Judean [element]3036 had been joined
to the city—and fulfilled their instructions, not indeed without bloodshed.3037 For the
Judeans, who had formed themselves up and positioned their own best-armed men at
the front,3038 held out for a long time; but once they buckled,3039 they were destroyed3040
without restraint.3041

3033
See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase tus, Hist. plant. 1.9.5; Polybius 3.49.7; Strabo 1.2.23 et
at 2.468. passim)—might conceivably explain the origin of his
3034
See the notes at 2.58, 491. association of Judeans with “what is called the Delta.”
3035
For the phrase “what is called the Delta,” see also This episode of Antipater’s military support for Cae-
Herodotus 2.13.9; Polybius 3.49.7 (with reference to the sar appears to have occupied a fixed place in his think-
Nile Delta), either of whom Josephus may be deliberately ing, from War (1.191) to Antiquities (14.133, 188) and
echoing. Since Philo explains that the city had 5 sectors, Apion (2.32-37). It appears to be the basis for his firmly
named after the first letters of the alphabet (hence there held but apparently mistaken notion that Caesar estab-
was a Delta sector), scholars have naturally accepted lished citizen rights for Judeans in Alexandria (in return
Josephus’ word that the Delta sector was the Judeans’ for precisely this help). Although he had spent some
base in Alexandria. Yet there are two problems. (a) A time in the city (Life 415), we have noted his apparent
papyrus that incidentally mentions the Delta sector (BGU confusion about inscriptions from “Caesar” and about
4.1151)—making no connection with Judeans—appears the alleged Macedonian tribe to which Judean citizens
to locate it to the W of the city (Fraser 1972: 2.109-10 belong (see notes at 2.488). Since he is the only one
n. 270), whereas Josephus (or at least Apion, whom he to connect Alexandrian Judeans with “what is called
does not challenge on this point) apparently understands the Delta,” and it is a problematic connection, and his
the Judean base to be on the E side (Apion 2.33, 36 with language here is exactly that of Ant. 14.133, it seems
Barclay ad loc. in BJP 10). (b) In the very passage where plausible that he has also confused the second-hand story
Philo mentions the 5 sectors (Flacc. 55), he foregoes the of an old Judean base in the (Nile) Delta with the Delta
opportunity to highlight the Delta sector or mention any sector of Alexandria—if only as a momentary slip of the
Judean associations with it, rather insisting that two sec- mind by word association, which he failed to correct.
3036
tors are distinctively Judean and that his compatriots are See the note at 2.478.
3037
actually dispersed throughout the whole city. Although I normally translate Greek litotes as a
I would point out further that Josephus does not speak strong positive to avoid the ambiguity of an English dou-
here of a Delta sector or quarter, as Philo does. His lan- ble negative, here the emphatic form makes the mean-
guage is vaguer. It may be no more than a curious coin- ing clear. The adverb ἀναιµωτί is Homeric (Il. 17.363,
cidence that he uses the very same expression, “what is 497; Od. 18.149; 24.532), but rarely attested between
called the Delta” (τὸ καλούµενον ∆έλτα), in a different Homer and Philo’s 6 occurrences (viz., Apollonius of
but related context. At Ant. 14.133 (par. War 1.191) he Rhodes, Arg. 2.986; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.51.3), though
has just related the shift toward Julius Caesar of many it appears 6 times in War 1-6 (also Ant. 19.115) and
petty rulers in the E, including the high priest Hyrcanus plentifully from Josephus’ time onward. Once again he
and Herod’s father Antipater, after the death of Pompey seems to be using language that has recently come into
(48 BCE). When Mithradates of Pergamum tries to join vogue.
3038
Antipater in Egypt, Antipater assists him in getting past This innate military know-how of untrained men
a defiant Ascalon; and when the Judeans of Leontopolis fits with Josephus’ portrait of Judeans throughout War ;
also then attempt to halt this expedition, Antipater per- see Introduction.
3039
suades them (with letters from the high priest) to join MSS PAL have the aorist participle of ἐκκλίνω,
the Caesarian cause (14.127-32). Now, “after he [Mith- which Josephus can use in battle contexts for “giving
ridates] had gone all around what is called the Delta (τὸ way, yielding, falling out (of order), escape”: 1.306;
καλούµενον ∆έλτα), he engaged the enemy near what 3.208. MVRC have simple κλίνω (“turn something
is called the ‘Judeans’ Camp’” (περὶ τὸ καλούµενον aside, cause it to lean”). But Niese prints Bekker’s con-
Ἰουδαίων στρατόπεδον; 14.133). jectural emendation based on ἐγκλίνω, which is followed
This association between an ancient Judean settle- by other modern editors. For a similar use of ἐγκλίνω in
ment in Egypt and “what is called the Delta”—i.e., here battle conditions, see 5.288.
3040
the Nile Delta, which is how “Delta” is consistently See the note at 2.11.
3041
used in connection with Egypt outside of Josephus (e.g., See the note to this characteristic adverb at
Herodotus 2.13.9, 15.2, 11; Plato, Tim. 21e; Theophras- 2.328.
356 book two

496 And their ruin3042 took various forms,3043 some being taken down while in the
open,3044 others being pressed together3045 into the residences. The Romans also set these
on fire, when they had first thoroughly plundered3046 what was inside,3047 and neither
pity3048 for the infants nor respect for the elderly 3049 entered their minds: they advanced
50,000 Judean through every age group, killing, 497 so that the whole place was overflowed with blood
dead in and 50,0003050 corpses were piled up.3051 And the remainder would not have survived,
Alexandria
had they not resorted to supplications.3052 Alexander3053 felt compassion3054 for them and
directed the Romans to withdraw. 498 Whereas they stopped the slaughtering at a mere
gesture,3055 having this quality of obedience3056 as a habit, the Alexandrian populace was

3042
See the note to this newly introduced word at Josephus, all in War. His usage is normally metaphorical,
2.494. as here: the word literally indicates the palm branches,
3043
It is typical of Josephus’ style that he will re-use woven with white thread, that served as the symbol of
this word (παντοῖος) a few sentences later in a com- supplication when held up and waved. That literal mean-
pletely different context (2.504: “of all sorts”)—the only ing will appear at 2.637 below.
3053
occurrences in War 2. The prefect, Tiberius Iulius Alexander (2.492,
3044
Or “flat area” (ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ), as distinct from the 494).
3054
built-up residential area. This is the only occurrence of κατοικτείρω in War
3045
See the note at 2.227. (see “compassion” at 1.12 for the important semantic
3046
This is the only occurrence of the doubly com- group), though Josephus uses the verb several times in
pound verb προδιαρπάζω in Josephus. It is not attested Antiquities.
3055
in literature before him; after him, only in Cassius Dio Literally “nod” (νεῦµα), though the term is used
(37.14.3) and occasionally in Byzantine authors. It is of field signals generally, such as the lowering of an
another example of highly compact, artful diction in this arm or even a trumpet blast (3.15, 89; 6.256; cf. 2.173).
narrative. Although Josephus’ audiences lacked the resources to
3047
Killing, plundering (with raping), and then burn- track them, this noun and the next (see next note) afford
ing was the normal sequence—the only one that made us some insight into his tendencies. This immediate
military sense—for Roman soldiers destroying a city, response by the soldiers anticipates 3.15 and especially
and for other ancient armies: Polybius 10.15.4-16.9; Livy 3.89, the digression on the Roman army in which Jose-
29.20.6-7; Ziolkowski 1993. The same will happen on a phus asserts that the legions respond instantly to signals.
larger scale to Jerusalem (e.g., 6.352-55; note 6.363 on But in the only remaining occurrence of the term (6.256),
the disappointment concerning plunder). Titus is made to look foolish as he yells and waves his
3048
For this tragic language, see the note at 2.474. arms in futility (trying to prevent the temple’s burning),
3049
Cf. 2.465: young and old, along with women, are while his soldiers either cannot or will not—because
the stock foci of pity during a siege. See the notes to of their rage—listen to him. Josephus thus elaborately
“women and children” at 2.192 and to “children and sets up the image of invincible Roman discipline, partly
women” at 2.237. in order to undermine it and favorably compare Judean
3050
In his speech at Masada, Eleazar son of Ya‘ir, who martial virtues.
3056
further inflates the already large numbers given in bk. This (τὸ πειθήνιον) is another substantivized neu-
2 for his rhetorical purposes, remarks that according to ter adjective serving as a noun, typical of War but unat-
report the number of Judeans in Egypt who died under tested otherwise before the early 3rd-cent. CE historian
torture at this time “exceeded perhaps 60,000” (7.369). Herodian (2.20.2). Since there are only 4 occurrences in
The city probably had more than 500,000 residents in Josephus, all in War (2.300, 498; 3.104; 5.121), for the
total, with as many as 180,000 Judeans there (Delia knowing reader this anticipates the next one, in Josephus’
1988: 287-88). Still, either number of victims is diffi- glowing description of the legions’ allegedly unswerv-
cult to conceive of (though not demonstrably wrong) on ing obedience (3.104). But the final occurrence in War
practical grounds. That there was a horrendous massacre (5.121) undermines that portrait, showing a Titus who
seems likely from its impact on this narrative, which is furious at his legions’ disobedience and citing Judean
would otherwise be subject to disproof in Josephus’ obedience to their commanders as a counter-example.
Rome. See, similarly, the previous note. Here Josephus’ rhetoric
3051
See the note to this formulaic language at 2.30. aims to highlight the Alexandrians’ lack of self-control.
3052
This is the first of 6 occurrences of ἱκετηρία in
book two 357

hard to call off,3057 because of their overwhelming hatred,3058 and could scarcely be dragged
away from the bodies.3059
(18.9) 499 Whereas3060 such terrible suffering3061 transpired3062 in Alexandreia, to Cestius
it no longer seemed proper, with the Judeans having been made the enemy3063 on every
side, to remain idle. 500 From Antiocheia3064 he took with him3065 the Twelfth Legion as Cestius takes
a whole,3066 plus 2,000 select [soldiers] from each of the others,3067 as well as six cohorts field with
Twelfth Legion
of infantry3068 and four wings of cavalry,3069 and advanced to Ptolemais.3070 In addition and kings.
Life24

3057
The elegant, doubly compound adjective δυσα- effort orchestrated by Cestius from the provincial capital.
νάκλητος occurs only here in Josephus. Attested before See Rey-Coquais 1978: 67-71 and the following notes.
his time only in a fragment of the minor (3rd-cent. BCE) 3065
Cf. the similar list of legionary and allied soldiers
medical writer Erasistratus (frag. 253 [Garofalo]), it gathered by the Syrian governor Varus in 4 BCE for a
appears nonetheless in Josephus’ contemporary, Plutarch campaign against rebellious Judeans after Herod’s death
(Thes. 24.1; Mor. [Adul. amic.] 74e), and several 2nd- (2.67) and that collected for the war itself (3.66-69). In
century and later authors, though it remains rare. Once this case (and probably in bk. 3), the impressive list of
again his War appears to be at the height of lexical fash- military resources at the Romans’ command serves to
ion. heighten the disaster that they faced at the hands of the
3058
Alexandrian and especially Egyptian hatred of the Judeans, in keeping with War’s purpose of correcting
Judeans has been clearly asserted as a premise for this disparaging accounts of the Judean side (1.1-8).
3066
episode (see the note to “ongoing civil strife” at 2.487) Legio XII Fulminata was based in Raphanea (so
and it will remain a constant theme until it is fully devel- War 7.18), at least from 62 to 69 CE (Rey-Coquais
oped in the Apion, which is configured as a response to 1978: 67). It was recovering from a recent and terrible
Egyptian-Alexandrian slanders: 1.70, 223-27; 2.1-2. disgrace in the Armenian campaign of 63 CE: under
3059
The image, sharpened by contrast to the disci- the inept supreme command of Caesennius Paetus (see
plined legionaries, is of dogs or other animals governed further 2.510), the 4th and the 12th had to beat a dis-
by instinct rather than reason or self-control. graceful retreat from the Parthian Vologeses, earning
3060
Whether Josephus uses the µὲν . . . δέ construc- the contempt of Corbulo (Tacitus, Ann. 15.7-17); they
tion to do more than create a segue back to Syria and were reportedly so depleted and dispirited that Corbulo
Judea—e.g., whether he also means to compound Judean sent them back to Syria and refused to use them in the
suffering everywhere by now describing Cestius’ cam- remainder of his campaign (15.26).
paign—is unclear. As the southern-most of the Syrian legions—a mere
3061
See the note to this recently emphasized keyword 25 miles (40 km) NW of Emesa, which contributed allied
at 2.469. forces to the campaign (2.501)—Legio XII was at this
3062
See the note at 2.315. This is the only other occur- point perhaps easiest to muster, 3 years after the Arme-
rence of the construction in Josephus; the juxtaposition nian debacle and at full strength for a Judean campaign.
of πάθος (“suffering”) confirms the growing sense of A legion’s potential strength was approximately 5,400,
impending doom. and Josephus’ language suggests that the 12th had been
3063
Or “having been drawn into hostilities.” The pas- fully replenished.
3067
sive voice of ἐκπολεµόω (active: “provoke, incite to con- These vexillationes amounted to 4 cohorts from
flict, war; make an enemy”) emphasizes the suffering of each legion (a total of 24 centuries). The separation of
the Judeans at the moment. It is not clear whether this cohorts from a legion for specific duties was common
reflection on the Judean situation should belong to the practice. Aside from XII Fulminata, the legions based in
thought of Cestius (he could see that Judeans were the Syria at this time (see Tacitus, Ann. 4.5 for the basic dis-
common ingredient in conflicts throughout Syria and position in Tiberius’ time, though Corbulo’s campaigns
intended to punish them for being drawn in, or some- had caused temporary shifts in the late 50s and 60s) were
thing of the sort) or to the narrator (Josephus is sum- III Gallica (soon to depart for Moesia), VI Ferrata (pos-
marizing for his audience that the Judeans in the Syrian sibly now at Raphanea with the 12th), and the renowned
cities as in Alexandria had been pushed into the position X Fretensis at Zeugma, in the NE of the province on
of “enemy” through no fault of their own; Cestius did the Euphrates (cf. Rey-Coquais 1978: 67-71; Dabrowa
not understand this, but only saw conflicts that needed 1986, 1993, 1996).
3068
ending). See the notes to “cohort” at 2.11 and “Sebastenes”
3064
Since the legionary camps were not in Antioch at 2.52. These 6 cohorts matched the entire auxiliary
itself, but distributed to the N, E, and S, Josephus is sim- forces of Judea (3,000 to 3,500 men), though in this
plifying what must have been a considerable logistical case they appear to have been raised from Syria. Since
358 book two

to these [he took] allied forces from the kings:3071 from Antiochus3072 2,000 cavalry and
3,000 infantry,3073 all archers,3074 and from Agrippa3075 the same number of infantry, though
fewer than 2,000 cavalry.3076 501 Moreover, Soaemus3077 was following with 4,000, of
which a third were cavalry and the majority archers.3078 502 Vast numbers of auxiliaries
were also recruited from the cities,3079 inferior to the soldiers in expertise,3080 certainly,

that province hosted about 21,000 legionary soldiers, we by the Syrian governor (Caesennius Paetus), in 72-73
would expect close to the same number of auxiliaries. CE, on false charges of having entered an alliance with
We do not have a clear picture of the number, size, and Parthia against Rome (7.219-243).
3073
location of auxiliary forces in Syria at this time, though The total of 5,000 from each these client kings
two diplomas from 88 CE indicate the presence of at roughly matched the 5,000+ Syrian auxiliaries and the
least 19 infantry cohorts and 8 cavalry wings (Butcher strength of the 12th legion.
3074
2003: 412): so at least about 14,000 troops, possibly Martial archery, especially on horseback, was a
2-3,000 more. famous specialty of the Parthians and of peoples origi-
3069
See the note to the same phrase at 2.67 (under nating from Parthia or Mesopotamia; cf. Herod’s employ-
Varus) and to “cavalry” at 2.235. These would prob- ment of Zamaris’ force of 500 mounted archers from
ably be auxiliary units numbering about 500 each, each Babylonia (Ant. 17.23-31). Since infantry soldiers or
under the command of a Roman praefectus alae—a pres- horsemen who were also accomplished archers presented
tigious position for young equestrians who had already a much more serious threat to their enemies, being able
commanded infantry cohorts and served as legionary to strike with accuracy from a distance, Josephus often
tribunes (Parker 1992: 188-90; Webster 1979: 112-13). pauses to mention separately the number of archers (e.g.,
The Roman auxiliary configuration of 3,000 infantry (6 at 3.68).
3075
x 500) plus 2,000 cavalry (4 x 500) thus matches more This is the Judean king Agrippa II, a prominent
or less precisely the forces contributed by the next two figure in the narrative thus far, last mentioned at 2.481-83
allied kings. (as having gone to confer with Cestius in Antioch).
3070 3076
The Greek sentence here is long and complex, The Latin offers 1,000 (mille), though with no
ending only at the end of § 501, with the contributions evident basis.
3077
from Agrippa and Soaemus included before the con- According to Ant. 20.158, Soaemus (not to be
clusion that Cestius advanced to Ptolemais. Since the confused with the father of the Noarus recently men-
sentence must be divided in English, I have brought that tioned, tetrarch of Libanus; 2.481, 483; cf. Life 52) was
clause forward. the brother of Azizus, king of Emesa. When Azizus,
For Ptolemais see the notes at 2.68 and especially who had undergone circumcision in order to marry the
2.187-88. Since 54 CE, the city has been a Roman colo- Herodian Drusilla (sister of Agrippa II; 20.139), died
nia; cf. Millar 1990. At 2.477 Josephus has included this in 54 CE, his kingdom went to Soaemus. Emesa (mod.
city among those that massacred their Judean inhabit- Homs) was a small independent kingdom in Syria, N of
ants—2,000 in that case. Iturea on the Orontes River near its source. Soaemus will
3071
The same 3 kings will also provide allied forces, be a significant ally of Rome in the war (3.68), and will
though strangely fewer in number, to the major campaign later join in the campaign of Caesennius Paetus to oust
of Vespasian and Titus (3.68). King Antiochus from Commagene (7.219-26).
3072 3078
This is Antiochus IV, king by Claudius’ grant of The simplest reading is that the “majority” repre-
Commagene (ca. 41 CE), the mountainous region N of sent the other two thirds: the infantry. This would also
the province of Syria (in S Turkey, N of the Euphrates), match Soaemus’ contribution to Vespasian’s force (3.68):
between Cilicia to the W and Armenia to the E (Ant. 2,000 infantry archers and 1,000 cavalry. The awkward-
19.273-76), with Samosata on the Euphrates as its prin- ness of dividing 4,000 in the same way no doubt explains
cipal city. Like other client kings in the area, Antiochus the variant “3,000” in MS V.
3079
had close relations with the Herodians; his son would Presumably: from the cities of Syria, the Deca-
marry the daughter of Agrippa I (sister of Agrippa II), polis, and the coastal region, mentioned in the preced-
Mariamme (Ant. 19.355). Although Antiochus remained ing paragraphs as sites of serious conflict with their
a loyal ally of the Romans and duly contributed to the Judean inhabitants. Berytians are specifically mentioned
war effort (cf. 3.68; esp. 5.460-65), one of the mov- at 2.506.
3080
ing “reversals of fortune” charted by Josephus in War Or “experience” (ἐµπειρία).
involves this king’s eventual removal from his kingdom
book two 359

but compensating3081 for their lack of skill with feelings of eagerness and hatred against
the Judeans.
Agrippa himself was present with Cestius, in charge of the route3082 as well as the as-
sistance efforts.3083
503 Cestius took a part of this force with him and rushed against a stalwart city3084 of Cestius attacks
Galilee, Chaboulon,3085 which is called “[the City] of Men”;3086 it separates Ptolemais from western Galilee

the nation.3087 504 He seized it deserted of men,3088 because the horde had retreated into the
hills,3089 but it was full of all sorts3090 of goods: these he allowed the soldiers to plunder,
whereas the town, though he was amazed at its beauty (it had residences constructed like
those in Tyre, Sidon, and Berytus),3091 he set on fire.3092 505 Then, after over-running the
countryside, plundering everything that presented itself,3093 and incinerating3094 the sur-

3081
For the rare compound verb, see the note to the hypothesis that the latter was read in from the next
“refills itself ” at 2.190. line (which also has ἀνδρῶν), though this would not
3082
As a Judean king with wide experience in the explain well the deliberate look of the whole phrase.
area, Agrippa would be able to advise on the most suit- Pelletier offers “La Salle,” following Schalit’s proposal
able approaches for military strikes and the likely tactics (Namenwörterbuch 1968 ad Ζαβουλών) that Josephus
of the enemy given the terrain. This pointed reference to wrote not the genitive plural but the rarely attested singu-
expert intelligence makes the following terrain-related lar ἀνδρών (“men’s apartment,” by extension “banquet-
catastrophes suffered by Cestius’ forces all the more hall”), noting the large Herodian ἀνδρῶνες described by
shocking. Josephus at 5.177 (cf. Ant. 15.199; 16.164 variants). This
3083
Greek τῶν συµφερόντων [ἐξηγούµενος] could ingenious solution may be correct, though it remains a
have several meanings because of ambiguity in the problem whether an audience would likely have caught
verbs: “in charge of, leading, interpreting, or figuring the meaning. On the other hand, a town nick-named
out” and “what would benefit the army, the care of the “Men’s Town” or similar (even if the name were invented
troops, what would be advantageous, what would happen by Josephus) would suit the context, given its stalwart
(eventualities), or the assistance efforts”—as here. The nature. On the theme of manliness in Josephus’ War , see
last possibility might mean that Agrippa, still under 40 the Introduction and Mason 2007d.
years of age, was in charge of all the supporting allied 3087
I.e., from the Judean ethnos, a point made also at
forces.
3084
Josephus’ other references to Chabulon’s location (3.38;
Josephus often applies this adjective (καρτερός)—
Life 213, 227, 234). Josephus will repeat this unusual
“solid, steadfast, secure, tough”, an admirable trait also
usage at 2.510.
of men (see the note to “endurance” at 2.138)—to cities 3088
Josephus appears to intend humorous irony: the
(War 1.321; 2.511; 3.111, 157, 290, 302; 4.412; Ant.
City of Men was now deserted of men, who had fled
2.250; 3.304; 4.171; 5.5, 72; 8.306, 383; 10.136; 13.16,
in fear. Note the very similar language at 2.515 below,
202; 15.297; Life 327). His re-use of this phrase after
just a few sentences (2.511) is typical of his tendency though with a different point and context.
3089
to use words or phrases in clusters. Chabulon was in the foothills of Galilee, which
3085
Although the Greek MSS, Latin, and Hegesip- lay to the E.
3090
pus agree on Zabulon, we follow Niese’s conjecture: the See the note to “various forms” at 2.496: a rela-
description fits precisely Josephus’ descriptions else- tively rare word re-used within a few sentences.
3091
where of Chabulon (mod. Kabul) in the foothills of W These are the 3 major cities of the Phoenician
Galilee next to the Plain of Acco-Ptolemais, about 14 coast, moving N from Judea; Tyre sits only about 45 km
km SE of Ptolemais, and marking the W extremity of (28 miles) N of Ptolemais.
3092
Lower Galilee (3.38; Life 213, 227, 234). The site served Capturing, plundering (at the general’s signal),
for some time as a base for Josephus in his defense of and burning were the normal consequences for rebel-
Galilee against Roman forces based in Ptolemais. An lious towns that fell into Roman hands; see the note to
early scribal misreading or “correction” of serifed X for “carnage” at 2.70.
3093
Z (to match biblical Zebulun) is easy to imagine. This is the only occurrence of the neuter-partici-
3086
The phrase ἣ καλεῖται ἀνδρῶν, found in all the ple construction τὸ προσπῖπτον in Josephus, though he
MSS, though not in Hegesippus, has caused commenta- often uses the compound verb. For the construction with
tors much difficulty. Niese printed it but suspected a cor- πᾶν, see Aristotle, Ep. 4.16; Polybius 10.46.2; otherwise,
ruption; Thackeray reads καλεῖται with “Chaboulon,” Isocrates, Fil. Jas. 10; Plato, Tim. 45c.
3094
dropping the relative pronoun and the genitive noun on See the note at 2.58.
360 book two

rounding villages,3095 he returned to Ptolemais.

506 During the plundering raids by those who were Syrians (especially by the
Berytians),3096 the Judeans had regained their courage,3097 for they well realized that Ces-
tius had marched off; they unexpectedly attacked those who had been left behind and
disposed of3098 some 2,000 of them.3099
Cestius attacks (18.10) 507 After Cestius had decamped3100 from Ptolemais, he himself reached*
Joppa, kills Caesarea,3101 but he sent a section of the army on ahead to Ioppa:3102 he had given the
8,400
order to garrison the city, if it were capable of being captured, whereas if they [those
inside]3103 were to detect the assault3104 beforehand, they should wait for him and the re-
maining force.3105 508 Some of the latter having pressed on by sea3106 and others by land,
they took* the city easily, from both sides. And since the residents could not get past them
to run, much less so as to prepare for a battle, they [the Romans] attacked them and did
away with them all, along with their families, and after they had plundered the city they
set it on fire.3107 509 The number of those slaughtered was 8,400.3108
Similarly, he [Cestius] also sent to the Narbatenian3109 toparchy,3110 which shared a
border3111 with Caesarea, large numbers3112 of the cavalry:3113 they cut through the land3114

3095
See the note to “carnage” at 2.70. These must additional recruiting or resupply from abroad) before
be only the small villages in the immediate vicinity of moving inland to Galilee and Judea.
3103
Chabulon, since at 2.510 Cestius will dispatch a general Since the verb is plural, whereas the antecedent
with an army to deal with Galilee as a whole. “city” is singular, and the Latin has oppidani as sub-
3096
Although it had been more than 80 years since ject, Destinon conjectured that οἱ ἔνδον dropped out in
Marcus Agrippa’s foundation of Berytus as a Roman transmission. It would be no great surprise, however, if
colonia (see the note to “Berytus” at 2.67), it is easy Josephus treated “city” (representing citizens) as a plural
to imagine that the veterans’ ethos of the city would subject here.
3104
particularly energize feelings of auxiliaries levied there Or “the approach” (ἡ ἔφοδος).
3105
against the rebelling Judeans. Given the immediate sequel, in which they do
3097
Note the similar structure at 2.541 below. wait for the remaining army, we should apparently
3098
Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11. assume that the advance force believed the Joppans had
3099
Perhaps we should understand that these vulner- detected their approach. It is not clear, however, that
able soldiers included largely inexperienced recruits lev- Cestius himself goes to Joppa.
3106
ied from the cities (2.502), who were motivated chiefly Cestius appears thus far as a formidable tactician,
by animus against the Judeans. using not only surprise but an unexpected approach from
3100
Although this is the f irst occurrence of the sea by part of his force to surround the people of
ἀναζεύγνυµι in War 2, and only the second in War (cf. Joppa.
3107
1.357), Josephus will use it again in rapid succession at See the note to “carnage” at 2.70; the pattern is
2.513, 540. It seems part of his distinctive lexicon; see set at 2.505 and repeated at 2.509.
3108
the note at Life 44 in BJP 9. Such a number, unusually specific (not rounded
3101
The procurator’s headquarters (cf. 2.16 and note), to the thousand), would presumably represent Joppa’s
where serious and programmatic conflicts have broken entire population.
3109
out, leading to the current conflict (2.266-92, 457). Cae- See the note to “a district of theirs” at 2.291. Jose-
sarea would be a 2-day march from Ptolemais with an phus portrays this elusive area of Narbata as a Judean
army, about 61.5 km (38 miles). On marching distances, enclave of villages in the foothills of NW Samaria, some
see Gilliver 1999: 49-53. 12 km (7.5 miles) SE of Caesarea.
3102 3110
The major Judean port after it was given to Herod Josephus evidently uses the word loosely, since
by Octavian; see the note at 2.97. Cestius thus sends part 3.54-55 describes 11 administrative toparchies (cf. Pliny,
of the army nearly twice as far down the coast as his stop Nat. 5.70), not including this one. This is the reading of
at Caesarea (another 51.5 km, 32 miles): 2 days’ fur- MSS PAL Latin; although MVRC read ἐπαρχία (“prov-
ther march at reasonable speed or conceivably a forced ince”), that would be yet more problematic. See also the
march of one day for a small tactical unit. As the context following note.
3111
indicates, he hopes for a surprise attack to secure these The only other occurrence of ὅµορος in War
two port cities (presumably, to block escape as well as describes the toparchy of Acrabeta, sharing a border with
book two 361

and disposed of3115 a vast horde of the locals, plundered their possessions,3116 and inciner-
ated3117 the villages.3118
(18.11) 510 Into Galilee he [Cestius] sent Caesennius Gallus,3119 commander of the
Twelfth Legion,3120 after handing over as much of a force as he reckoned would suffice
against the nation.3121 511 The most stalwart city3122 of Galilee, Sepphoris,3123 welcomed* Caesennius
this man with an acclamation, and the remaining cities—on the good advice of this Gallus in
Galilee
one3124—remained placid. But the factious and bandit-like element3125 fled to the center-
most mountain in Galilee, which lies opposite Sepphoris and is called Asamon.3126 Gallus
led his force against them. 512 Now as long as they were higher up, they easily fended
off the advancing Romans, and destroyed about 200 of them; but when the latter had gone

Judea (2.235). If Josephus imagined these two Judean The man in question here (PIR2 C 170) would go on
enclaves in Samaria as a pair, that might explain his to govern Cappadocia-Galatia in 80-82 CE (Sherk 1951:
transference of the term “toparchy” from Acrabeta to 39-40; Syme 1977: 39 n. 11). This implies that he had
Narbata; see previous note. risen to the consulship in the meantime, though if so his
3112
See the note to this word at 2.55. dates in that office are unknown. At any rate, Josephus’
3113
For Cestius’ considerable cavalry assets, see mention of this younger Caesennius in connection with
2.500-1. Legio XII Fulminata would certainly have caught the
3114
I.e., with speed on horseback, they cut down trees attention of an élite Roman audience in the 70s. For the
and grain crops, laying waste to the land; for the expres- cognomen Gallus, see the note at 2.280.
sion cf. Thucydides 1.81.6; 2.21.2-3, 55.1, 56.4, 57.2, 3120
See the note at 2.500.
73.2, 74.1; 3.88.4; 5.14.3, 31.3; Isocrates, Big. 13; Pac. 3121
Cf. 2.503, where Josephus also speaks of the
100; Plato, Resp. 471c. Judean “nation” (ἔθνος) in Galilee.
3115
Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11. 3122
See the note to this phrase at 2.503 above. At
3116
See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase 3.33-34 Josephus elaborates on the situation and strate-
at 2.468. gic importance of Sepphoris.
3117
See the note at 2.58. 3123
See the note to this important city, the effective
3118
This is the pattern of Roman military behavior capital of Galilee now, at 2.56. For Sepphoris’ peaceful
in this context (2.505, 508); see the note to “carnage”
disposition (and the hostility this reportedly engendered
at 2.70.
3119
among some other Galileans) see also Life 30, with the
Although A. Caesennius Gallus is named again
note to “Sepphorites” in BJP 9 and Life 39. Both the
in War only at 3.31 (a retrospective glance at this same
coinage of the city, which styled itself as “City of Peace”
campaign), the audience might easily make inferences
and Neronias (until Nero’s death in 68), and the archae-
about his ability as commander from the performance
ology from the time of the war attest to its commitment
of his 12th Legion, which will be central to the follow-
ing story. Caesennius came from a favored senatorial to peace with Rome. Cf. Meshorer 1982: 2.167-69 and
family in Rome: his father or perhaps uncle, L. Iunius Meyers 2002.
3124
Caesennius Paetus, had been ordinary consul in 61 CE By contrast, a much earlier Syrian legate had
under Nero, and married a Flavia Sabina (ILS 995), attacked and burned Sepphoris, also marching from
perhaps Vespasian’s niece, in the early 70s (Townend Ptolemais, as his first effort to quash the revolt that broke
1961: 59; cf. Syme 1958: 595 n. 5); another L. Iunius out on Herod’s death in 4 BCE (2.68), because a leading
Caesennius Paetus, apparently another son (Carroll 1979: rebel had based himself there (2.56). In the narrative, this
198), would be suffect consul probably in 79 CE (Gal- “good advice” is easily intelligible as a lesson learned
livan 1981: 189; PIR2 C 168, 173, 174). The father had 70 years before.
3125
incurred Nero’s displeasure as governor of Cappadocia For “factious” see the note at 2.91; for the col-
for reckless handling of the 4th and 12th legions (see next location with “bandit,” 2.235.
3126
note); he was removed from command of the Armenian Mt. Asamon (Atzmon) sits directly across the
campaign in 63 CE (Tacitus, Ann. 15.6-28), but would Beit-Netofa valley from Sepphoris, 7.5 km (4.67 miles)
find favor again as Vespasian’s relative and as legatus to to the N, in front of Josephus’ chosen fortress town of
Syria in 72-73 CE, where yet again he appears to have Iotapata (the next hill N). Asamon is indeed the high-
engaged in reckless behavior—now toward the client est point in the region, at about 550 m (1800 ft), and
royals of Commagene (War 7.59, 219-38). Cf. Garzetti is accurately described as the most central mountain in
1966. Galilee. It was a natural choice for local rebels.
362 book two

around and come to be in the higher elevations,3127 the others were quickly worsted. They
could neither, being lightly equipped, take on the armed troops in close combat3128 nor,
in the rout,3129 escape the cavalry.3130 Consequently, although a few escaped notice in the
rough terrain, over 2,000 were destroyed.
Cestius moves (19.1) 513 Gallus, for his part, since he could see nothing that was still conducive to
inland, to
Gabaon
revolution in Galilee, returned with the army to Caesarea.3131 But Cestius decamped with
his entire force3132 and put in at Antipatris,3133 and when he learned that a considerable
force3134 of Judeans was gathered in a certain tower called Aphek,3135 he sent on ahead
men to engage [them]. 514 Yet before it came to blows3136 they thoroughly scattered the
Judeans in alarm,3137 and after they came upon their camp, deserted, and the surrounding
villages, they set them on fire. 515 From Antipatris, Cestius proceeded to Lydda3138 and
seized* the city empty of men,3139 for the whole horde had gone up to Hierosolyma on
account of the Feast of Tenting.3140 516 Fifty of those who did show themselves he dis-
posed of3141 and, after burning down their town, continued advancing further. He went up

3127
Cf. Gichon 1981: 49-50, for discussion of the Refounded by Herod, and named in honor of his
maneuvers involved, with illustrations. It seems that the father Antipater (War 1.417), approximately on the site
Judeans had simply seized the slopes of Mt. Atzmon fac- of biblical Aphek (see the later note in this sentence) and
ing the plain and within striking distance of the advanc- Hellenistic Pegae (“springs”), the city marked the nexus
ing Romans. Gallus, while maintaining pressure on the of Judea, Samaria, and the coastal plain. It achieved fame
front, sent a detachment around the enemy’s flank, to primarily through its mention in the NT Acts (23:22-23)
approach them from the higher elevation behind. In this as a stop on Paul’s journey from Jerusalem to Caesarea,
scenario, Gallus bears some blame for walking into such and the transition-point from hostile Judean territory. For
an obviously disadvantageous battle; but the Judeans the archaeology, see Appendix A to BJP 1a.
3134
reveal a complete lack of experience in selecting a posi- Translating Greek litotes: “a force of not a few.”
3135
tion so short-sightedly. Migdal Aphek (Aphek Turris) was a village (mod.
3128
I.e., the infantry who have climbed up behind the Mejdel Yaba) a short distance E of Antipatris.
3136
Judean rebels. See the note to this formulaic phrase in Josephus
3129
Josephus uses τροπή only twice in War 2, and in at 2.77.
3137
close proximity (also 2.541). This illustrates his tendency The sentence recalls, also in its diction, the Judean
to cluster uses of many words and phrases. flight before Varus in 4 BCE (2.72).
3130 3138
As educated audiences knew, the cavalry would See the note to this important site at 2.242.
3139
remain in the flat plain, where they had the clear advan- Note the very similar phrasing at 2.504. Since
tage over foot-soldiers; see the note to “plain” at 2.12. these are the only two passages in Josephus that contain
3131
At 2.507 it seemed that both Cestius and Caesen- this verb with “empty” or “deserted” of “men”, this is
nius Gallus remained based in Caesarea, notwithstanding another example of his tendency to cluster phrases in
the following suggestion that the rest of the army joined proximity and not use them again.
3140
the units that had gone ahead to Joppa. I.e., Booths or Tabernacles (Sukkot), in Septem-
3132
Although Josephus’ contrastive sentence structure ber/October. This is the only reference to the festival by
might suggest that Caesennius Gallus and the 12th legion this name in War (cf. Ant. 4.209; 8.100, 123, 225; 11.77,
were not part of Cestius’ force, later passages make it 154; 13.46, 241, 372; 15.50). The name σκηνοπηγία is
clear that the 12th remained the principal component of taken from LXX Deut 16:16 (cf. John 7:2), for Hebrew
that army and its catastrophe (5.41; 7.18). ‫חג הסכות‬. This is the week-long autumnal harvest fes-
3133
This was an important site at the crossroads of the tival beginning on Tishri 15, soon after Yom Kippur. It
inland N-S route from Caesarea to Lydda (cf. 2.515) and required Israelites to live in booths, recalling the period
S, or E to Jerusalem via Beit Horon, and the W-E route in the wilderness en route to the promised land (Lev
from coastal Apollonia to Gophna and on to Jerusalem 23:33-43; Deut 16:13-16; Ezra 3:4; Neh 8:14-17). It
from the N. It was about 45 km (28 miles) march from seems likely, given Agrippa’s presence as adviser on
Caesarea, conceivable as a single day’s forced march for local matters (2.502), that Cestius pressed his advance
an unencumbered unit in a hurry (which the context may partly in order to catch the Judeans while they were dis-
suggest), but more likely 2 days’ march for an army in tracted by this major festival.
3141
normal conditions; see Gilliver 1999: 49-53. Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11.
book two 363

through Baithoron3142 and set up camp*3143 at a certain place called Gabao, fifty stadia3144
away from Hierosolyma.
(19.2) 517 When the Judeans realized that the war was already coming near3145 to the Judeans leave
mother-city,3146 they quit the festival and went to their weapons; taking great confidence in Feast of Booths
for successful
their mass, in disarray3147 [but]3148 with a yell they leapt forward into the fight, taking no attack on army
cognizance of the seventh-day rest, though the sabbath3149 was certainly their paramount
devotional commitment.3150 518 Now the temper that had shaken them out3151 of their pi-
ety made them also strain for the fight: they attacked the Romans with such fury3152 that
they tore through their ranks and advanced through their middle,3153 devastating3154 [them].

3142
See the note to this important site—comprising Plutarch, Mor. 5a; 416c), thus: “disordered, random,
two towns, respectively at the upper and lower ends of a unformed, in disarray, unsettled” over against “ordered,
steep and difficult pass—at 2.228; for Cestius’ disastrous arranged, positioned, formed up, arrayed, settled.” Jose-
return via the same route, see 2.542-56 below. phus mainly uses the privative adjective in military con-
3143
This is the first of 3 occurrences of the verb texts, to indicate a disorderly force (War 1.382; 2.517;
στρατοπεδεύω in close proximity (also 2.528, 530), 3.113; 4.231; 6.255; Ant. 15.150-52). The most obvious
whereas it appears elsewhere in bk. 2 only at 2.44. contrast is with the precisely ordered Roman legions
3144
Gabaon (Gibeon, el-Jib): about 9 km or 5.6 miles and auxiliaries (cf. esp. 3.70-109). See also the note to
from Upper Beit Horon, about over half-way along the “irregular exercises” at 2.649.
3148
road from there to Jerusalem. Cestius will return here in “But” is not in MSS PAL, which are often the
retreat from Jerusalem and Mt. Scopus (2.544). It is about best, though Niese regards as probable the MSS readings
32 km (20 miles) from Lydda: a difficult day’s march for that have it. Even if Josephus omitted it, something like
an army, given the challenge of the Beit-Horon pass just it seems necessary.
3149
mentioned (see Gilliver 1999: 49-53 on marching dis- Josephus continues War’s pattern of using “seventh
tances). As Josephus’ language everywhere emphasizes, [day],” adding “sabbath” for local color and variation of
Cestius was determined to move at the greatest possible diction. See the note to “seventh days” at 2.147.
3150
speed and deprive the enemy of time to prepare. This is an ominous notice, recalling Agrippa’s
Gibeon was famous from the Bible: its Hivite inhabit- admonition at 2.392-93 that either sabbath observance
ants reportedly arranged a deceitful treaty with Joshua, will hinder a war or its violation will bring divine punish-
who made them woodcutters and water-carriers for the ment. The construction is another of War’s articular neuter
Israelites (Josh 9:3-6, 16-27). participles: τὸ [µάλιστα παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς] θρησκευόµενον
3145
When this was is far from clear, though a decision occurs only here in Josephus, and is otherwise attested
on the matter affects one’s reading of the sequel (2.521). only in the undated History of Alexander (1.32.2), before
Bar-Kochva (1976: 18) imagines that the Judeans’ strike the Byzantine chroniclers.
3151
was more or less immediate upon the army’s arrival at This is the first of 5 occurrences of ἐκσείω in
Gabaon, while the rear was still ascending Beit-Horon Josephus, all in War (2.544; 3.246; 4.431; 6.28). The
(2.521), but this is difficult to square with Josephus’ compound is rarely attested before him (Herodotus
narrative, which implies that a camp was established 4.64; Aristophanes, Ach. 344; Polybius 6.44.6; Diodo-
before the first contact (2.516). Gichon (1981: 53) has rus 18.66.5—all possible models), though it becomes
Cestius camping overnight at Gabao and the Judeans popular among his younger contemporaries (Plutarch,
planning an ambush for the next day, which occurred Timol. 15.6; Ant. 14.5; 60.4; 79.6; Mor. [Virt. sent.] 78b;
“possibly not later than the early morning hours of the [Quaest. conv.] 713a; Epictetus in Arrian, Diatr. 1.26.11;
second day of Cestius’ advance into the mountains.” That 4.9.10, 13.22; Lucian, Tim. 43). It is another example
makes sense of this passage, though it still leaves prob- of War’s use of newly fashionable diction and (in the
lems for Simon’s attack on the rearguard “ascending at next occurrence, 2.544) of Josephus’ tendency to re-use
Beit-Horon” (2.521: see further the notes there). phrases in close proximity.
3146 3152
See the note to this word at 2.400. Or “with such a rush, charge” (ὁρµή).
3147 3153
The adjective ἄτακτος here usually implies a Unlike most of War’s later battle accounts, this
contrast with τεταγµένος (Xenophon, Mem. 3.1.7; Cyr. one gives no clear picture of the location, terrain, or type
1.4.22, 6.35; Plato, Leg. 780d; Hippocrates, Humor. 9; of encounter. Were the Romans attacked in their camp
Demosthenes, Aristog. 1.15; Aristotle, Cael. 280a; Probl. at Gibeon, on the march to Jerusalem in an ambush, or
920b; Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 1.8.3; Polybius 38.6.4; in a set battle of some sort?
364 book two

519 Were it not that the cavalry had supported the slackening infantry-column by coming
out around,3155 along with that [part] of the infantry that was not becoming desperately
weary,3156 Cestius with his entire force would have been at risk.3157
Those who died: of the Romans 515, of which 400 were infantry and the remainder
cavalry; of the Judeans 22.
520 Now they considered their most excellent3158 [fighters] to be the relatives of
Monobazus,3159 the king of Adiabene—Monobazus and Cenedeus;3160 after them, Niger
the Perean3161 and one who had deserted to the Judeans from King Agrippa, Silas the
Babylonian,3162 for he was in military service with him [Agrippa].
Simon son of 5213163 Whereas, having been repelled from the front,3164 the Judeans returned to the
Gioras attacks
rearguard

3154
Or (as elsewhere) “getting rid of them, disposing Titus (6.356-57; cf. 4.567; 5.474).
3161
of them” (ἀναιρέω): Josephus’ preferred euphemism This figure bears a well attested Roman cognomen
for killing. (cf. Suetonius, Aug. 11), meaning “black, dark” (prob-
3155
This was precisely the function of cavalry ably a reference to beard color; cf. Rufus, Fulvus) and
“wings”: support of the infantry column in trouble, or implying Roman citizenship (Kajanto 1982: 64, 228).
harrying and rapidly pursuing a retreating enemy (Web- That status would explain his inclusion with Adiabe-
ster 1979: 145-47; Gilliver 1999: 110-12). The double nian royalty and the apparently distinguished Silas (next
compound ἐκπεριέρχοµαι occurs in War only here and note). Later chosen as a regional commander in the war
a few paragraphs later (2.565); see the note to “bam- against Rome (2.566) alongside Josephus, Niger will
boozled” there. play a prominent and valiant role in the narrative (3.11,
3156
At the only other occurrence of the neuter parti- 20, 25, 27-28), before being killed by the radical wing
cipial phrase τὸ κάµνον in his corpus, a few paragraphs after their murder of the chief priests Ananus and Jesus
below (2.579), Josephus the general will train his army (4.359-64). For Perea, see the note at 2.57 and the fuller
in the very same principle. description at 3.44-47: it was the region across the Jor-
3157
In this early encounter Josephus is laying the dan River, W of Philadelphia (mod. Amman), that was
ground for one of War’s main themes: in contrast to administratively part of Judea. Agrippa II had been given
existing accounts that belittle the Judean effort, he will the city of Perean Iulias and its related villages by Nero
show how tough his compatriots proved to be (cf. 1.4-12 in 54 CE (2.252; Ant. 20.159).
3162
and Introduction). This man is apparently one of the “Babylonian
3158
The superlative γενναιότατοι probably connotes Judeans” settled by Herod in Batanea (Ant. 17.23-31).
here “most courageous, capable” (as at 4.51, 427), Indeed, another Silas had been a close friend, aide,
though its root meaning connected with noble origin and military commander under Agrippa I (Ant. 18.204;
might also come into play with these particular men, 19.299, 317-25, 353), and the Babylonian connection
who all apparently belong to the élite. would make good sense in this regard, given the similar
3159
Monobazus II, the current Adiabenian king (ruled careers of the family of Zamaris, especially Philip son
ca. 58 to mid-70s CE?), was the son of Monobazus of Iacimus (see the note at 2.421). His inclusion with
Bazeus (ruled 20-30 CE?), husband of Queen Helena; Adiabenian royalty and Niger suggests that Silas was
Monobazus II was thus the brother and successor of much more than an ordinary soldier; Agrippa may have
Izates (ruled ca. 34-58 CE; Ant. 20.18, 24-26, 93-96). felt his loss very keenly. (For other élite deserters from
Like his mother and brother, he had reportedly adopted Agrippa’s territories, not necessarily Judeans, see Life
Judean laws (Ant. 20.75). 112-13.) At any rate, Silas will briefly rise to a command
3160
See the notes to “Adiabene” and “war” at 2.388 position in the Judean forces (3.11), but will die in an
and 389, respectively. The narrative thus refutes Agrip- early assault on Ascalon (3.19). On the name, see the
pa’s confident prediction that Adiabenian royalty (now note to a different Silas at 2.616 below.
3163
embracing Judean law and culture) would refuse par- The following is a peculiarly artful sentence; the
ticipation in the war. At Ant. 20.71 Josephus claims that balance between “frontward” and “rearward,” matching
Izates had sent 5 young sons to be educated in Jerusa- “Judeans” and “Romans,” seems forced. There is also a
lem, and it is antecedently probable that he, their rough curious coincidence of language with 2.90 (“maul” and
contemporary (b. 37-38 CE) in the same city, knew them “from the front”).
3164
personally. These men, named only here, might well be Josephus does not elaborate, but in general it is
Izates’ sons (nephews of the king) and also among the clear that the Judean guerrillas could not face Roman
determined Adiabenian royals eventually captured by forces directly in open battle. Hence, having accom-
book two 365

city,3165 from behind3166 Simon son of Gioras3167 attacked the Romans as they were ascend-
ing at Bethora3168 and mauled much of their rearguard:3169 he dragged off large quanti-

plished what they could in guerrilla strikes, they returned Judeans cannot mount a frontal attack on the Romans,
to their stronghold of Jerusalem. once the latter turn back Simon’s guerrillas can attack
3165
To Jerusalem, which the fighters had left in mid- their rear. This would anticipate precisely what happens
festival (2.517). at 2.540-43. But it is not the most natural reading of
3166
The literary artificiality of this construction is either verb or preposition (cf. Ant. 17.259; 18.126); the
highlighted by Josephus’ deliberate use of κατόπιν: all army clearly did not return to Beit-Horon at this point.
3 occurrences in War 2 are between here and 2.543 a (b) The attack was on the Roman rearguard as it was
few sentences below (including 2.537). Such clustering still ascending Beit-Horon, part of the same force that
of diction is characteristic of his style. had already reached Gabaon, but perhaps 9 km (nearly
3167
This is the first mention of a major figure in War ; 6 miles) behind it. A column on the march, if confined
he becomes from 4.353 onward. Simon was report- to a single road, 4 abreast, required several km of road
edly the son of a convert (so giora) and still a young (e.g., 30,000 infantry in close ranks, with 1 m from one
man at this time, perhaps from the famous Decapolis man’s back to the next, would require 7.5 km; 6 abreast
city of Gerasa (4.503), though his home town may be [War 3.124] required 5 km. A force including hundreds
a different site in Judea by the same name—since the of cavalry, separation between units, and a baggage train,
“Gerasa” of 4.486-90, shortly before the mention of such as this one, would have been much longer still;
Simon’s home, cannot be the Decapolis city (see M-B cf. Gilliver 1999: 46-48). Bar-Kochva (1976: 18) and
ad loc.; Schürer-Vermes 2.150; Schalit 1968: Γέρασα; Gichon (1981: 52-55) both propose that this column
Bergmeier 1998: 77-78). Simon and John of Gischala length explains the possibility of a frontal attack on the
will ultimately lead the two main factions in Jerusalem force already at Gabaon (or beyond) and an attack from
(5.11, 21, 105, 248-55; 7.263-66), constituting them- the rear at the Beit-Horon pass.
selves the principal “tyrants” envisaged by Josephus at But Josephus claims that Cestius’ force had estab-
1.10. Simon will be ignominiously captured (7.26-35) lished a camp at Gabaon (2.518). Bar-Kochva downplays
and later executed in the Flavian triumph, as the chief Josephus’ narrative here to posit an attack “launched
culprit of the war (7.154). The two men also find mention simultaneously” at the head (Gabaon) and rear (Beit
in what remains of Tacitus’ account (Hist. 5.12), which Horon) of the same column, which he estimates at 8
might have been influenced by Josephus’ War. War 2 km in length (1976: 18). Gichon (1981: 52-53), taking
will end with a series of anticipatory notices, including the narrative more seriously, assumes that Cestius must
a passage that looks ahead to the emergence of Simon have broken with the normal order of march, perhaps out
as a tyrant (2.652-54). of disdain for the enemy: in the many descriptions we
3168
The story is confusing for two reasons: (a) Ces- have, from Polybius to Josephus (War 3.115-26; cf. Gil-
tius’ (main?) force has already ascended through Beit- liver 1999: 38-46), the baggage is part of the continuous
Horon (2.516) and set up camp at Gabaon (Gibeon), column, carefully protected by substantial forces. If the
about 9 km further along the road (2.516), before the rearguard had still to ascend Beit-Horon when the main
conflict just described; (b) the verb ἄνειµι could mean force was encamped at Gabaon, then these components
either that the Romans were going up to Beit-Horon (the were separated by many kilometers, with the rear dan-
common usage in Josephus: 1.134; 2.318; 3.268, 343; gerously exposed.
5.22) or that they were going back there (cf. Ant. 16.86), But even if Cestius and his legionary commanders
and the preposition ἐπί with accusative would oblige indulged in such bizarre behavior, it is a further problem
either sense (“going up on to” or “going back in the to imagine how Simon and his band could have learned
direction of, towards”). These uncertainties suggest two of the proximity of the Roman force (the narrative sug-
ways of understanding the text. gests: at Gabaon) and managed to get from Jerusalem to
(a) Having fought at Gabaon and forced the Judeans the rear of the column as it ascended Beit-Horon without
back to Jerusalem, this Roman force returned on the taking the main road, which was of course occupied by
road towards Beit-Horon (i.e., “returning towards” rather oncoming legionaries. By the time they had gathered a
than “ascending at”), which was also the road towards force and reached Beit Horon (by difficult trails through
their camp at Gabaon. Josephus mentions Beit-Horon, the hills?), surely the force would have passed by.
perhaps, to keep the notorious pass in the audience’s Another possibility is that this is a flashback to
mind in preparation for the disaster at 2.546-55. This Simon’s activity before the head of the column reached
would make sense of the present sentence: although the Gabaon, and not a description of what happened later or
366 book two

ties3170 of the baggage train3171 and conducted it into the city.3172 522 With Cestius keeping
his position3173 for three days,3174 the Judeans had seized the heights3175 and were keeping
watch on the access routes,3176 for clearly they were not about to remain idle when the
Romans had begun to move.3177
Agrippa II’s (19.3) 523 Now Agrippa,3178 having fully recognized that the situation of the Romans
unsuccessful was not free of danger, with a countless horde3179 of enemy having occupied the hills,3180
appeal to desist
decided to subject the Judeans to a trial with words:3181 either he would persuade them all
to put aside the war or he would cause the element that was not in agreement to defect
from those who were arrayed in opposition.3182 524 So he sent to those [people] the most

3173
simultaneously, as the language implies. On any reading, Although the sense is not clear, it seems that Jose-
Josephus has not been clear. We must remember that phus means at Gabaon (Gibeon), 10 km (ca. 6 miles) N/
Josephus often compresses events to the point of distor- NW of Jerusalem, where Cestius has set up camp (2.516)
tion for purely narrative reasons. The preceding notes in and from where perhaps he will strike again to chase the
this volume dealing with parallel accounts in Antiquities rebels into Jerusalem (2.527).
3174
or Life show that he regularly changes details, and often Note the parallel with his 3-day delay at Scopus
transforms major elements in the retelling. We have no (2.528).
3175
reason to assume, and good reason to doubt, that he felt Cf. the next sentence: the hills around Jerusalem
more committed to the events as they happened than to were in the hands of the rebels.
3176
pursuing a good story, for a Roman audience with no The Judeans will be, however, quickly chased
knowledge of Judean geography. back to Jerusalem (2.527) once Cestius brings his
3169
This word (οὐραγία) appears only here in Jose- 30,000-strong force toward Jerusalem.
3177
phus, though he uses the masculine form (of rearguard Thackeray (in LCL), Pelletier, and M-B all take
soldiers) at 3.126; 5.49; classical use of that form appears the construction οὐκ ἠρεµήσοντες ἀρξαµένων τῶν
limited to Xenophon, Cyr. 2.3.22; 3.3.40; Anab. 4.3.26, Ῥωµαίων ὁδεύειν as conditional (“should the Romans
29. Unattested in classical Greek, feminine οὐραγία begin to move,” “falls die Römer zum Weitermarsch
was a favorite of Polybius (who has it 25 times) and of aufbrechen sollten”). That is possible, and allowed by
the tactical writers Onasander (6) and Polyaenus (19). my translation, though the Romans are already on the
It also appears occasionally in the LXX (Deut 25:18; move.
3178
Josh 10:19) and Philo (quoting Deuteronomy at Ebr. Agrippa is presumably still in the company of
24 and Migr. 144). The biblical passages refer, respec- Cestius at Gabaon (2.502, 516).
3179
tively, to the cursed Amalekites’ attack on Israel from See the note to this characteristic phrase at 2.43.
3180
the rear, while they were exhaustedly fleeing Egypt, and Judean occupation (περιέχω) of the hills will be
to Joshua’s command to attack the rear of the fleeing reprised at 2.550.
3181
Midianite kings. Although it is tempting to see Josephus Josephus has used the same construction at 2.411,
imagining Simon as a despicable Amalekite (for his own as a prelude to oratory; see the note there.
3182
pleasure; most of the audience would not recognize the The logic is slightly awkward: Where, among those
parallel), the passage from Joshua would make such a in determined opposition (τῶν ἐναντιωθέντων), was the
connection difficult. unsympathetic element to be found? Either the narrator
3170
See the note to “large numbers” at 2.55. anticipates the king’s success in detaching some from the
3171
I.e., the pack animals that accompanied a Roman rebel cause, or the text may be faulty, or it is a minor slip
army on the march (cf. 3.125). This capture cannot on the part of Josephus. The Latin (si qui aduersarentur),
have been comprehensive, since later in the narrative “if some were opposed,” seems to read the quoted Greek
the legions will still need to get rid of their considerable phrase as a genitive absolute (rather than as partitive),
baggage and many pack animals in retreat (2.544, 546, and this inspired Destinon’s emendation of τῶν to τινῶν:
553). Still, it seems clear that Cestius did not come pre- “if (only) some stood in opposition,” Agrippa would lead
pared for a long campaign (Goldsworthy 1996: 87-90), those who did not agree with them to break away. Nor is
and any significant loss in such an early engagement it clear from the sequel (2.526) whether there had always
would pose serious problems. been a disaffected group among the rebels or whether
3172
Apparently Jerusalem again: the rebels are stor- they only became disaffected over the maltreatment of
ing up the captured supplies in what is becoming their Agrippa’s emissaries.
fortress city.
book two 367

conspicuously notable3183 of those who were with him, Borcius3184 and also Phoebus,3185
promising pledges from Cestius and a trustworthy3186 pardon from the Romans with respect
to the offenses committed, if they would discard their weapons3187 and reverse course to
[join] them. 525 Becoming alarmed that the entire rabble might just reverse course for
Agrippa, in the hope of amnesty,3188 the insurgents3189 rushed to do away with those who
had been sent by him as emissaries.3190 526 They disposed of3191 Phoebus before he even
uttered a sound, whereas Borcius was able to get ahead and escape, wounded. Those of
the populace who had become indignant they herded back into town, hitting them with
stones and sticks.3192
(19.4) 527 When he saw that their disturbance in relation to one another was opportune Cestius at
for a strike,3193 Cestius brought up his whole force and, after they [the rebels] had been Mount Scopus,
burns Betheza,
routed,3194 gave pursuit as far as Hierosolyma. 528 Having set up camp3195 on what is called besieges
Scopus3196 (this is seven stadia away from the city3197), for three days he made no attempt Jerusalem

3183
See the notes to “powerful [men]” at 2.239 and resonance of the word, however, the primary sense is
“notables” at 2.243. apparently about the posited amnesty.
3184 3189
Known only from this story, Borcius (variant See the note to this key word at 1.10.
3190
Borcaeus) has a name that is neither Greek nor Latin. Killing ambassadors, messengers, or heralds, who
The first syllable may represent the Aramaic bar (as were sacrosanct even in times of the harshest conflicts,
Βορζοχορίας in Horbury and Noy 1992: 216 #127), was a patently heinous crime; cf. Bederman 2001: 106-
though it closely resembles a form of the Hebrew word 110.
“lightning, brilliance, or sheen” (‫)ברק‬, which would be 3191
Or “destroyed”; see the note at 2.11.
3192
very similar to the name of his colleague Phoebus: a Illustrating his tendency to re-use words and
bright pair indeed! phrases in close proximity and then drop them, Josephus
3185
Meaning “pure, bright, radiant” in Greek, this was will use the collocation “hitting, with stones, drive” a
a famous ancient epithet of the God Apollo (Homer, Il. few sentences below, at 2.534—and not otherwise. Since
1.43). This figure is unknown outside the present pas- both stones and sticks were plentiful around the out-
sage, but he matches our expectation that Agrippa’s court skirts of Jerusalem, the image seems to be of weapons
included well-educated Greeks and some Roman citizens of opportunity used to injure and harass but not delib-
(cf. Life 32-33, 356). Phoebus and derivatives are amply erately to kill.
3193
attested Greek personal names (Solin 2003: 302-303), This observation anticipates the much-elaborated
also among slaves in Rome (Solin 1996: 270-72). theme later in War , that internal dissension or civil strife
3186
Lit. “non-slip.” The trustworthiness of pledges is (a fundamental theme: 1.10) creates a God-send for an
a central issue in the narrative after the bad faith of the attacking enemy: 4.397; 5.18-30, 248-57. Note especially
rebels themselves at 2.437-38, 450-53. the debate that Vespasian holds with his generals about
3187
The formulaic phrase ῥίπτω + τὰ ὅπλα is Poly- using the Judeans’ internal strife either as an opportunity
bian (4.69.7, 71.11; 18.23.4, 26.5, 26.12), used several to strike or as a reason to delay, while the opposition
times in later historians (Diodorus 36.4.3; Dionysius, destroy themselves (4.366-77).
3194
Ant. rom. 4.51.4; 5.42.2; 6.82.3; 8.17.6; 11.8.2; 12.13.4; Presumably these are the Judean irregulars who
Strabo 5.4.11), and especially favored by Josephus (War have occupied the hills to protect the access routes to
2.613; Ant. 12.343; 20.123; Life 166, 371). Jerusalem (2.522-23).
3188 3195
It seems from the context, concerning pledges See the note at 2.516.
3196
(2.524), that the term ἄδεια here must have its most This is the first mention of a site that will play
common sense of “safe conduct, indemnity, amnesty.” a significant role in Titus’ later campaign (5.67-68,
See the notes to “amnesty” at 2.55 and “freedom from 106-108; Ant. 11.239). As Josephus explains in these
fear” at 2.238. Nevertheless, the text has a play on the later passages, the Greek name Scopus (Heb. ‫)הר הצופים‬
δει- (“fear”) root: the rebels are anxious that the popu- has to do with the breath-taking view over Jerusalem
lace will reject them in hopes of living “without fear.” It that this hill provides from the NE. Modern home of the
is tempting to read this as freedom from fear of the rebel Hebrew University, Scopus forms the northern compo-
leaders, since that would match a continuing and potent nent of the Mt. of Olives ridge, which runs parallel to
strain of irony in War (e.g., 2.264, 443, and the note to Jerusalem on the E across the Kidron Valley. Since the
“freedom” at 2.259). Although that may be a secondary elevation of Scopus is about 825 m (2,700 ft), in con-
368 book two

on the city, expecting a somewhat rapid surrender3198 by those inside,3199 though he did
dispatch many of the soldiers into the surrounding villages for the plunder of grain.3200
But on the fourth [day], which was the thirtieth of the month Hyperberetaeus,3201 he drew
up his army and led it into the city. 529 Whereas the populace was kept imprisoned3202 by
the insurgents, the insurgents, 3203 terrified at the orderliness of the Romans,3204 conceded
the sectors outside the city while they withdrew to the interior and the temple.3205 530
After Cestius passed through, he set fire* to Betheza, also styled the “New City,”3206 and
to what is called the Timber Market;3207 then, when he had come to the Upper City,3208 he
set up camp opposite the royal palace.3209

trast to Jerusalem’s E hill at approx. 740 m (2,430 ft)— buildings themselves (see note at 2.1). The “interior”
on the level of Herod’s temple mount (now the haram appears to be the oldest part of the city, Upper and
es-sharif)—with a valley in between them, and since it Lower, within its first and “nearly impregnable” wall
could be reached with relative ease by the Roman road (5.142).
from the N, it and the Mt. of Olives (at 883 m [2900 ft]) It was precisely this vulnerability of the new areas,
provided logical bases and observation posts for invad- which had spilled out to the N and NW (the only contig-
ing armies. uous, more or less level ground available) of the ancient
3197
About 1.4 km (0.87 miles). Josephus will give the city, that had led Agrippa I to begin building a “third
same accurate distance at 5.67-68. wall” for Jerusalem; see 2.218 and note (cf. 5.147-55).
3198
Given the rebels’ inability to face the Romans Although he did not complete that project, the rebels
frontally (5.214, 521), and the sheer intimidation gener- will learn from Cestius’ easy advance here (and Florus’
ated by an army of 30,000 regular soldiers with thou- earlier assaults: 2.328): in anticipation of Titus’ army
sands more in support (2.500-501), all amassed in full they will hastily erect a high (if relatively flimsy) wall
view on the heights above Jerusalem (cf. Titus’ hope, on Agrippa’s foundations (5.155).
3206
when displaying his forces, at 5.348-55), and given his Josephus delays his geographical description of
knowledge of deep dissension among the Jerusalemites this area (opposite Antonia to the N of the temple) until
(2.526-27), the narrative character Cestius has every rea- 5.149-51, where he paints a word picture of the entire
son to expect a quick capitulation. city before the final siege; cf. the note to “Betheza” at
3199
Lit.: “that something would be quickly conceded, 2.328 above.
3207
surrendered”—perhaps written thus to create a word play: Nothing else is known of this market, though we
τάχα τι παρὰ τῶν ἔνδον ἐνδοθήσεσθαι προσδοκῶν. may surmise from its location in the New City (not in the
3200
The concern for a secure grain supply was fun- temple compound) that it existed chiefly for the private
damental to Roman military thinking; see the note to market in building materials, rather than for sacred use;
“legion” at 2.63. It would have been particularly impor- cf. Jeremias 1969: 50.
3208
tant now that Cestius has lost a significant part of his See the note at 2.344: this was the higher, W hill
baggage train. of Jerusalem, on which sat the Herodian and Hasmonean
3201
See the note to “Artemisius” at 2.284: this is the palaces, as well as the homes of the wealthier citizens
end of Tishri (September-October), with the autumnal (including chief priests). It was enclosed along its N
new year, Yom Kippur, and the Feast of Booths (2.516) edge by the “first wall,” which joined the bridge over the
recently completed. It is the time when Jerusalem, after Tyropean Valley at what we know as Wilson’s Arch to
6 months of often cloudless skies and warmth, begins to enter the temple compound (5.145; see 2.344 and notes).
turn wet and cold. It seems from Josephus’ language here (“to/at the Upper
3202
The adjective ἔµφρουρος is attested only about City,” “opposite the palace”) and from 2.533-35 (where
a dozen times before Josephus; he has it only here and Cestius is offered admission to the city proper) that the
at 2.654. Roman forces remain outside the Upper City and its
3203
See the note to this key word at 1.10. wall.
3204 3209
Roman orderliness (εὐταξία) is a consistent Cestius thus follows a familiar pattern for Roman
theme in War : 1.22, 143; 3.85, 467, 488; 4.635; 5.285, commanders; cf. Florus’ route at 2.328-29, which ended
353; 6.22. Josephus will try to train his Judean soldiers at the camp inside the Herodian palace (on which, see
to emulate it (2.580); at 2.151 he also claims such order- 2.301). Here Cestius must camp “opposite” the palace,
liness as a marked Essene trait. perhaps in the open Upper Market area described at
3205
The “temple” is the massive Herodian precinct, 2.305 (inside mod. Jaffa Gate), immediately outside the
raised and lined with colonnades, not merely the sacred oldest (“first”) wall of the city.
book two 369

531 If only he had been willing at that very hour to get inside the walls by force,3210 Cestius fails to
he would instantly have had the city, and it would have happened that the war was ter- force attack
minated.3211 But the camp prefect3212 Tyrannius Priscus,3213 along with most of the cavalry
commanders,3214 having been enticed3215 by money from Florus,3216 dissuaded him from
the undertaking. 532 It was indeed for this reason that the war extended to such a long
duration, and that it transpired that the Judeans were filled up with irremediable calami-
ties.3217

3210
Being already past the second wall and outside (1982: 30) includes Priscus among the 18 Latin cog-
the Upper City, Cestius’ forces were effortlessly in a nomina that occur with extremely high frequency (in
position that Titus’ army would achieve only after a long this case, 1269 attestations). This may well be the same
siege and much bloodshed: the latter will be roughly in figure as the Priscus (commander of the legio VI vexilla-
Cestius’ position again only at 5.237, and then they will tion) who dies in Cestius’ retreat below at 2.544.
3214
be contending with large and intransigent rebel forces, See the note to this descriptive term (for a “pre-
including Idumeans and John of Gischala’s Galileans. fect”) at 2.291. Gichon (1981: 55) notes that cavalry
Josephus’ point (made in retrospect) thus appears to be officers had good reason to demur, since their troops
that Cestius had only to make a focused assault against would be of very limited use in narrow city streets.
3215
the relatively thin opposition that existed at this time, MS L has δεκασθέντες (“having been bribed”—a
since he had easily dominated so much of the city verb not used elsewhere in Josephus), and is followed by
already. Niese, Thackeray (LCL), Pelletier, and M-B. But MSS
3211
This is the first of 3 such claims by Josephus: Ces- PAMVRC read δελεασθέντες, and the Latin offers a
tius might also have gained the city by accepting open corresponding corrupti. The overwhelming MSS sup-
gates (2.533-34) or by pressing the siege a bit longer port for the latter, and the fact that Josephus uses this
(2.539)—but he did not. The claim is of course impos- verb 7 other times (5 in War, and 1 recently: 2.468),
sible to prove. Unless Cestius had conducted a wholesale speak strongly in its favor. Finally, δελεασθέντες enjoys
massacre, destroying the city and razing its walls (which the preference that should be given to the more difficult
he was in no position to do at this point). It is far from reading (lectio difficilior), since it is easy to imagine a
clear that the later Judean and Idumean reinforcements scribe changing “enticed with money” to the simpler
would have abandoned the contest for Jerusalem. At any “bribed with money”; harder to imagine the reverse.
3216
rate, the wall facing Cestius was a huge obstacle (2.535; This notice comes as a surprise, since after pro-
5.142), and its capture would later tax the 10th Legion viding the narrative focus for nearly a quarter of bk. 2
to the maximum (5.468). (2.177-420), Florus has disappeared from the scene. This
3212
This is the standard equivalent of praefectus cas- alleged bribery is his final act; he will be mentioned
trorum (H. J. Mason 1974: 87), the senior officer with again only at 2.558 (in Cestius’ thoughts). We left him in
ultimate responsibility for maintaining the camp, and for his Caesarean provincial headquarters, determined to fan
logistics when on the march, including the conduct of the flames of war (2.420) and maliciously imprisoning
sieges. This was an extremely important, senior position the Judeans of Caesarea who tried to flee the massacre
open to men of equestrian status with long experience there (2.457).
as soldiers and centurions; appointed by the princeps, Is he here a deus ex machina, to explain Cestius’
they provided the highest level of professional expertise withdrawal? Bribery by enemies is a convenient narra-
in the legion, and as 3rd in command sometimes had tive device (cf. Life 189-96). Without dismissing it out
to assume leadership in the absence of the senatorial of hand, one can also imagine mundane reasons why
legionary legatus (cf. 6.238, though legionary command Cestius’ senior counselor, an officer with long experi-
in Egypt had unique aspects). Part of their brief was to ence and now responsible for siege logistics, might have
keep a watchful eye on the senatorial commanders, in advised the legate against an assault on the heavily for-
loyalty to the princeps (Parker 1992: 192-96; Le Bohec tified eastern hill, with the mighty temple compound
1994: 39). This role and his standing as most senior sol- behind, when Cestius’ forces apparently did not come
dier and siege director, or perhaps as commander of the prepared for a siege (see below).
6th legion’s force in Jerusalem (cf. 2.544), would have 3217
For the adjective, see the note to “irremediable
made Priscus’ advice difficult for a commander such as suffering” at 2.233. The noun συµφορά is programmatic,
Cestius to ignore. enhancing the tragic tone, in War and in bk. 2; see the
3213
This is an apt name for a powerful man urging notes at 1.9; 2.286.
extreme caution: “despotic + old-fashioned.” Kajanto
370 book two

Ananus ben (19.5) 533 Meanwhile many of the most notable citizens,3218 having been persuaded
Jonathan’s by Ananus son of Ionathes,3219 kept calling Cestius [from the walls]—that they were go-
attempt to open
gates fails ing to open up the gates for him. 534 But he forfeited the moment,3220 both because he
ignored3221 [them] in his rage and because he did not entirely trust [them],3222 until the
insurgents3223 perceived the betrayal and threw Ananus’ group off the wall.3224 Hitting
them with stones, they herded them3225 into their homes,3226 whereas they, after positioning
themselves at intervals [on the ramparts], would bombard from the towers3227 those who
put the wall to the test.3228
535 So when, although the Romans kept up their efforts for five days and from every
direction, the assault was proving infeasible, on the following day Cestius took with him
large numbers3229 of the select [soldiers]3230 and the archers3231 and began making attempts
Cestius makes on the temple’s northern side.3232 536 From the colonnade the Judeans kept blocking
headway, [them], and repeatedly beat away those who had reached the wall; but finally, driven back
terrifies
insurgents by the mass of arrows,3233 they withdrew. 537 Now the first of the Romans wedged3234

3218
See the note to “common folk” at 2.253; it is were anywhere near the area of the wall, thus in the
the same Greek word. Josephus’ emphasis cannot be Upper City, confirms their status among the city’s
on commonness as distinct from élite status, but must wealthy élite.
3227
be on (alleged) normal citizenship in distinction from I.e., with projectiles such as arrows and stones.
the determination to rebel. See the note to “powerful Ancient audiences would expect city walls to have tow-
[men]” at 2.239. ers. Josephus claims at 5.158 that this first wall alone
3219
This is the only appearance of this figure in Jose- supported 60 massive towers.
3228
phus. His name and his father’s are so common that it Most translators (Whiston, Thackeray, Pelletier,
is impossible to identify him beyond Josephus’ remark M-B) take ἀποπειράοµαι here as a practical equivalent
that he belonged to the city’s élite. of ἀποπειράζω (“make an attempt on”). Although that
3220
This is the only occurrence of διαµέλλω in War makes sense in anticipation of the next sentence (2.535),
(cf. Ant. 14.352; 17.86; 19.80). It means literally that it restricts the object of attack to Romans outside the
Cestius “kept being about to . . . (but did not).” If the wall. But the middle voice may also share the sense of
tense were imperfect we should say that he “kept dither- the passive, “subject [X] to trial, put to the test,” which
ing.” Since it is aorist, we may take it that Josephus wants Josephus has used in recent paragraphs (2.411, 523; cf.
to highlight the very brief moment when the shouts of 2.4). Given the actions of Ananus’ group just described,
those on the wall might have been effective, before they to which the rebels’ actions are a response, it is possible
were thrown off. that Josephus also has in mind further attempts to use
3221
The verb ὑπεροράω can mean either simply the summit of the wall from the inside, to offer surrender
“overlook” or “look down upon, disdain, treat with con- to the Romans.
3229
tempt.” It is difficult to see why Cestius would look with See the note to this phrase at 2.55.
3230
contempt on an offer to enter the city, much easier to The definite article suggests that Cestius takes
see him consumed by anger and not grasping the sig- the soldiers chosen from the legions other than the 12th,
nificance of what was being yelled until it was too late. though not necessarily the total of 6,000 (2.500).
3222 3231
Josephus gives an entirely plausible motive (cf. These come mostly from allied forces; cf. 2.500-
5.318-30, where Titus should have been more suspi- 501.
3232
cious). This language about the temple’s N side is almost
3223
See the note to this key word at 1.10. formulaic in War (1.118, 145; 2.44; 5.352); see the note
3224
Although we do not know the precise height of at 2.44. This was the side on which the fortress Anto-
the wall at various points, it was certainly high enough to nia stood, now partly destroyed, and the scene of earlier
cause serious injury to those thrown down from it, even violence (2.328-31, 430).
3233
perhaps from steps ascending to the parapet. The image See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48.
3234
is of extreme cruelty. The verb ἐξερείδω occurs only here in Josephus
3225
This clause is nearly identical to that at 2.526, and is otherwise extremely rare (Dioscorides, Mat. med.
the similarity illustrating Josephus’ tendency to re-use 1.69.4; Lucian, Pod. 55). Polybius (8.4.6; 16.11.5; the
similar language in close proximity. rare cognate noun at 6.23.5) is his most likely inspira-
3226
That the residences of Ananus and his friends tion.
book two 371

their shields into the wall, and likewise those who were behind3235 [put] others down onto
these in a series, and so they secured what is called among themselves “the tortoise”:3236
off of this the arrows,3237 being [easily] tolerated, glanced away3238 without effect, and the
soldiers, suffering no injury at all, continued undermining3239 the wall and preparing to
burn the gate of the temple.3240
(19.6) 538 Terrible alarm seized the insurgents:3241 already many were running away3242
from the city in the belief that it was going to be captured presently. It happened that the
populace was encouraged by this and, to the extent that the worthless [fellows]3243 might
relent, they themselves would approach the gates3244 with the intention of opening [them]
and welcoming Cestius as benefactor—539 who, if he had persevered a short while with
the siege, would indeed have quickly taken the city.3245 But I think that because of the
worthless [fellows],3246 God, having already been turned away even from the holy places,
prevented the war from reaching a conclusion on that day.3247
(19.7) 540 Cestius, at any rate, since he comprehended neither the despair3248 of those Cestius
being besieged nor the state of mind among the populace,3249 suddenly recalled his soldiers inexplicably
raises siege,
and, having thought better of his hopes, though without a single blow,3250 most astonsh- leaves
Jerusalem. Life
24

3235
See the note to this phrase at 2.521. the strenuous efforts required by Titus’ much larger and
3236
Although mentioned only here by Josephus, the better-equipped army at a later stage (e.g., 5.466-72; cf.
χελώνη or “overhead cover” (by joined-up shield) was Gichon 1981: 56).
3241
a famous military maneuver (Polybius 9.41.1; 10.31.8 See the note to this key word at 1.10.
3242
[Macedonian military uses]; Aeneas Tacticus 32.11; For would-be tyrants “running away” from the
Onasander 20). It came to be associated particularly polis—a shameful picture, and not the behavior of states-
with the Roman legions (as the testudo) because of their men such as Josephus (cf. 2.556-58)—see also 2.447.
3243
perfection of the movement to afford protection on all See the notes at 2.156, 273. Josephus characteris-
sides. Livy (44.8) and Cassius Dio (49.30-31) give a tically re-uses the word in the next sentence.
3244
fuller description of the Roman forms; cf. Parker 1992: This construction seems to imply that courageous
256; Gilliver 1999: 134-36. The formation is pictured on people never did manage to reach the walls and invite
Trajan’s and Marcus Aurelius’ columns (plates in Gilliver Cestius in (or the siege would have been unnecessary).
1999: 136; Goldsworthy 2003: 194): it was a symbol of It was their intention to do so, and they made some
the legions’ extraordinary discipline under direct fire. headway, but only to the extent that the frightened rebel
3237
See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48. leaders became temporarily less vigilant.
3238 3245
This verb (περιολισθάνω) is barely attested before See the note to “terminated” at 2.531.
3246
Josephus (Hippocrates, Prisc. 22; Artic. 47; Dionysius, See the note in the previous sentence.
3247
Ant. rom. 14.10.3; Philo, Conf. 38), though War has it That God has (been) turned away from Jerusalem
3 times (also 3.173, 386) and it becomes popular with and its temple, and now using the Romans to achieve his
Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch (7 occurrences) and will, was clearly anticipated by Josephus’ Agrippa in his
into the 2nd century. As often, War seems to ride a crest deliberative speech (2.390). This editorial observation by
of fashionable diction, anticipated by Philo. Josephus is the first in a long series of such judgments
3239
Although Niese and Thackeray (with MSS PA) throughout the rest of the book: 3.293, 351; 4.366, 370;
read ὑπέσυρον, the normal sense of that verb in the 5.19, 39, 278, 343, 367-68, 378, 396; 6.38, 101, 110,
active voice (“drag down”) does not suit the context 299, 371, 399, 433; 7.34, 319.
3248
nearly as well as Josephus’ standard verb for “undermin- Although Josephus uses ἀπόγνωσις only twice in
ing” (2.435-36; 4.63, 79; 5.153, 469; 6.27-28, 71, 222), War 2, the other instance follows after a few sentences
ὑπώρυσσον (here 3rd pl. imperfect), which is given by (2.549). By this typical clustering of terms, Josephus
MSS MLVRC and reasonably followed by M-B. highlights in this case the abrupt reversal of fortune, for
3240
Exactly where this gate stood, or how Cestius it will soon be the legions who are in despair.
3249
could have expected to break through the northern Presumably, their alleged eagerness to open the
approach to the temple with its massive foundation gates to him (2.538).
3250
stones, in a very short time and without any (mentioned) The clause καταγνοὺς ἐπ᾿ οὐδεµιᾷ πληγῇ τῶν
elaborate siege equipment, is far from clear. Contrast ἐλπίδων is rather elliptical, given the range of nuances
372 book two

ingly3251 decamped from the city. 541 At this unexpected turnabout3252 of his, having re-
gained their courage3253 the bandits ran out against3254 those at the rear3255 and destroyed3256
large numbers3257 of the cavalry and infantry.
542 And so, although for the moment Cestius bivouacked*3258 in the camp on Scopus,3259
on the following day he attracted his enemies’ attention3260 yet more by separating himself
further.3261 Concentrating their force on those at their [the Romans’] rear, 3262 they were
disposing of them: distributing themselves along each [side] of the road, they [the Judeans]
Cestius’ force kept hurling spears3263 at their sides. 543 Those at the back did not have the courage3264
suffers initial to turn themselves toward those wounding them from behind,3265 supposing that some
losses in
withdrawal to countless horde3266 was chasing [them]; nor would they stand fast to repell those who were
Gabaon. putting pressure on3267 their flank—being heavily armed themselves and having become
anxious about breaking ranks, whereas they had seen that the Judeans were lightly armed
and ready for sudden raids.3268

3257
of the participial verb (he “formed an opinion of the See the note to this phrase, recently used often
hopes”), the lack of clarity as to who owns the hopes (2.478, 490, 509, 521, 535), at 2.55.
3258
(the Judeans, or his?), and uncertainty as to whether the See the note at 2.69. This verb stresses now the
“blow” was something that had not been struck or not provisional nature of his stay.
3259
been received by Cestius. See the note at 2.528.
3251 3260
Greek παράλογος, here in superlative adverbial Lit. “called the enemy to himself, summoned the
form (as also 1.373; hardly attested before Josephus, enemy.”
though found several times in the 2nd cent. CE and 3261
I.e., by abandoning not only the siege on Jeru-
later), means essentially “beyond calculation or ratio- salem’s N wall, but also his forward base on Scopus,
nality.” This leads to different emphases in usage: from Cestius clearly signaled to the Judeans that he was in
“unexpected, surprising,” perhaps wondrously so (Ant. retreat.
3262
2.339; 3.18; 4.127; 6.282; 7.157), to “strange, weird, odd, See the note to this phrase in the preceding sen-
bizarre, unreasonable, irrational” (1.373; Ant. 1.13). In tence.
3263
this context there seems no need to choose (as perhaps This is the only occurrence of ἀκοντίζω in War
at War 5.114, 291; 7.195): “very strangely and surpris- (but Ant. 10.134; 13.61; 14.401). The compound with
ingly.” Unexpectedness is featured in the next sentence. κατά (“shoot down with a spear”) is common (12 occur-
3252
Appearing only 8 times in War, τροπή occurs rences in War ).
3264
twice in bk. 2 in close proximity: cf. 2.512. Or “did not dare.” The picture that Josephus pres-
3253
For an earlier recovery of Judean courage at Ces- ents here of legionary fear already undermines by antici-
tius’ departure (from Galilee), with ensuing slaughter (of pation his glowing (therefore partly ironic) account of
Syrian auxiliaries), see 2.506. Note the proximity of this, the legions’ perfect discipline and unflappable courage
the only other occurrence of ἀναθαρσέω in War 2. (3.74, 98-100, 105-107).
3254 3265
The double compound ἐπεκτρέχω (only in MS See the note to this phrase at 2.521.
3266
P, but preferable as the more difficult reading) is hardly See the notes at 2.43, 253.
3267
attested before Josephus (Xenophon, Hell. 4.4.17; 6.2.17; This verb (ἔγκειµαι) has the same root as the one
Philo, Leg. 2.100), though he has it 4 times (all in War : rendered “concentrating their force on” in the previous
1.253; 3.267; 7.197) and it becomes common in the 2nd sentence, but with a different prefix.
3268
cent. CE (Plutarch, Pausanias, Arrian, esp. Cassius Dio). This is a paradoxical picture, since Polybius
This is another example of his using newly fashionable (18.28-32) had famously assessed the great advantage
language, anticipated by Philo. of the Roman formation (over the Macedonian phalanx,
3255
Here is an especially clear case of Josephus’ ten- reflecting on the Battle of Cynescephalae in 197 BCE) to
dency to cluster vocabulary: he uses ὕστατος only 17 be its complete flexibility: “For every Roman [soldier],
times in his entire 30-volume corpus, but 3 of those as soon as he is armed, will strike according to need; he
occurrences (all those in War 2) come here, in the next adapts himself indifferently to every terrain and occa-
sentence, and a few sentences later (2.547), though the sion, and to every sudden appearance” (18.32.10). In
context changes. Josephus, however, the legions often appear as a rigid
3256
See the note at 2.11. The verb διαφθείρω is par- and inflexible force over against courageous and effec-
ticularly frequent in this episode: 2.541, 542, 544, 546, tive Judean guerrillas.
557.
book two 373

The result was that it fell to them [the Romans] to suffer considerable injury, [while]
they were inflicting no harm* at all in return on their adversaries.3269 544 Being hit and
shaken out3270 of their column all along the road they kept falling down, until, with many
having been disposed of—among whom were Priscus,3271 the commander of the Sixth
Legion; Longinus, a military tribune;3272 and the prefect of a [cavalry] wing,3273 Aemilius
Iucundus3274 by name—they barely made it to their former camp at Gabao,3275 after aban-
doning the bulk of their equipment.3276
545 There Cestius lingered for two days, completely stumped3277 as to what he should
do, but when on the third day he observed the enemy [becoming] much more numerous,
and every place in the vicinity filled with Judeans,3278 he realized that he had loitered
against his own [interest], and if he should remain still longer he would have to deal with
more adversaries.
(19.8) 546 In order that he might effect3279 a more compact3280 escape, he gave orders to
cut loose whatever was dragging the army down,3281 and after the mules, donkeys, and even

3269 3275
Josephus omits a conjunction or coordinating syn- As narrated at 2.516; see the note to “fifty stadia”
tax (asyndeton), perhaps for effect. there.
3270 3276
See the note to “shaken them out” at 2.518. Since But see 2.521, where Cestius has already lost large
column discipline was the hallmark of the legions (Gold- parts of the baggage train to Simon’s group; 2.546, where
sworthy 1996: 176-247), this was a very ominous devel- he will deliberately jettison much more (while keeping
opment. dozens of animals for the artillery); and 2.553, where
3271
At 2.531 we met a camp prefect, one of Cestius’ the Judeans will capture all of that. If this is not simply
most senior advisors, named Tyrannius Priscus. Praefecti rhetorical exaggeration, we must imagine that Cestius
castrorum were 3rd in rank within a legion, though we do came with considerable long-term food, clothing, and
not know the legion to which Tyrannius belonged. Since, building supplies, to be able to lose so much.
3277
however, the Legio VI Ferrata had contributed a vexil- See the note at 2.287. Josephus will re-use
lation of 2,000 men (2.500), one of the legion’s senior ἀµαχανέω at 2.548, illustrating his tendency to clus-
officers must have been in command: a tribune or camp ter unusual diction (the verb appears only 11 times in
prefect. Given that this Priscus is described as com- his corpus). The (literal) “resourcelessness” of a senior
mander of that legion’s detachment, he might well have Roman commander and presumably his surviving gen-
been also camp prefect of Legio VI. Although Priscus is a erals was the absolute antithesis of the Roman military
common name (see 2.531), the long odds of finding two and political ethos.
3278
men with this name among the few most senior officers This phrase (πάντα τὰ κύκλῳ [µεστὰ Ἰουδαίων])
in Cestius’ army support the identity of the two, though will be reprised at 2.550.
3279
we cannot be certain. Or “manage, deal with”: Josephus re-uses
3272
One of the 8 most senior officers of a 5,400-strong χράοµαι from near the end of the preceding sentence
legion (with the legate, camp prefect, and 5 other tri- (“deal with”), but now in a different sense.
3280
bunes—of either senatorial or equestrian rank) or the Or “tighter, more focused, more intense.” Although
commander of a 1,000-strong auxiliary cohort; see notes Josephus uses the adjective σύντονος only 9 times in
at 2.11, 244, 335. The cognomen Longinus (meaning his corpus, the only other occurrence in War 2 comes a
“tall”) was common, with some 200 attestations in mas- few sentences below (2.553), illustrating his tendency to
culine and feminine forms across social ranks (Kajanto cluster vocabulary.
3281
1982: 231). This figure, otherwise unknown, may have Or “holding the army back.” The compound verb
commanded one of the legionary vexillations, or perhaps ἀνθέλκω is attested only a dozen times in all of Greek
a double-strength auxiliary cohort. literature (Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Chrysippus,
3273
See the note to “wings of cavalry” at 2.67. Diodorus, Dionysius) before Philo, who uses it a remark-
3274
This may well be the auxiliary cavalry prefect able 7 times; Josephus has it twice (also 1.23 in War’s
Iucundus who had been based in Caesarea at the time prologue), and it becomes more common in Plutarch,
of the earlier conflict, who had tried to restore order (cf. Galen, Lucian, and later writers. His use of this verb thus
2.291 and note). fits a general pattern: Philonic language that is becoming
increasingly popular.
374 book two

pack animals had been disposed of3282—with the exception of those that transported the
projectiles3283 and the engines for them3284 (for they carefully preserved these, on account
of need and especially because they had become anxious that they might be captured by
the Judeans3285 [for use] against them)—he led the force towards Bethoron.3286
Judeans 547 Now while the Judeans applied less pressure in the open spaces,3287 once they [the
massacre Romans] had become crowded together into narrow spaces3288 and the descent,3289 those
Twelfth Legion
at Beit Horon. [Judeans] who had gone ahead were blocking them from [reaching] the exit route,3290
Life 24 whereas others were pushing those at the rear3291 down into the ravine,3292 and the whole

3282
See the note at 2.541. reach the upper town, before the 3.3-km descent to the
3283
See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48, and next lower town. See the note to this fateful site at 2.228.
3287
note. This is the only occurrence of εὐρυχωρία in War
3284
See 2.553 for a fuller description. On the variet- (but Ant. 2.220; 15.347; 19.223).
3288
ies of Roman imperial artillery, see Marsden 1969 (esp. Bar-Kochva (1976: 19) notes that this accurately
174-98), 1971; Bishop and Coulston 2006, esp. 88-90. describes the road as it passes between the hills of Upper
The two main kinds of engines would be torsion-driven Beit-Horon on the right and (mod.) Sheikh Abu Shusha
stone- (or shot-) throwers (ballistae) and bolt-firers on the left, perhaps even beginning from “Hill 665,”
(catapultae), varying considerably in size. Cf. 3.166-68 about 0.75 km (0.5 miles) before that point, where the
below, where these machines appear in Vespasian’s arse- road is confined between the hill on the right and a steep
nal, the ballistae throwing shot weighing a talent (26-38 ravine on the left.
3289
kg [60-80 lbs]). Although Cestius’ artillery would likely Reading τὰ στενὰ καὶ τὴν κατάβασιν (so MSS
have been more modest, given his rapid deployment and PAL and Latin) with Niese and other editors. Bar-
limited aims, the projectiles in question would still have Kochva (1976: 19 n. 23) argues for τὴν κατὰ τὰ στενὰ
been stone shot and bolts or arrows of some description. κατάβασιν (with the generally inferior MSS MVRC),
Vitruvius describes both kinds of engines (distinguish- mistakenly attributing this to the better MSS. He points
ing machines from instruments) in bk. 10 of his (late 1st out that the steepest descent is beyond and down from
cent. BCE) De architectura. See Diodorus 20.48 for the the narrow pass between Upper Beit Horon and Sheikh
story of their invention in the succession wars following Abu Shusa: “the descent under the narrows.” He may be
Alexander’s death. quite right about the tactical dispositions in question, but
In the 4th century CE Vegetius (2.25) would spec- in trying to explain the variant readings we must prefer
ify that each legion carried 55 catapults and 10 stone- the one that has both better attestation and the virtue of
launchers, and this happens to fit the numbers given being difficilior. Even if Josephus had expert knowledge
by Josephus for Vespasian at 3.166 (as Thackeray also of the site, we cannot assume that he always intended to
notes). If Cestius had brought the 12th legion’s full artil- be precise for his Roman audience: he might well have
lery and some from the vexillations, there may have been lumped the narrow pass and the descent together as the
100 or so pieces with his force. problem faced by the retreating force, as indeed he seems
3285
Captured Roman artillery was valuable indeed to have done.
3290
for the Judeans, who had no means of producing such This exit route would be either the foothills after
engines (cf. 2.435, where Menachem faces precisely this Lower Beit-Horon or, at least, the more gentle and less
lack in trying to besiege Jerusalem). Their construction constricted descent after the dog-leg in the road turns N/
required technical expertise, machined materials, and NW toward that town. Bar-Kochva (1976: 19) suggests
specialized workshops, as a glance at Vitruvius’ chapters that a blockade of trees and rocks would effectively bar
on these machines in De arch. 10 reveals (cf. Marsden the narrow road.
3291
1969: 175-88). But this fear on the part of the Romans This is the 3rd and final occurrence of a somewhat
will be fully realized at 2.553, when the Judeans do rare adjective in Josephus within a few sentences; see the
indeed capture their equipment. Josephus builds sus- note at 2.541. Bearing in mind the considerable length
pense, or tragic irony (since the audience knows the of the marching column, over several kilometers (see the
conclusion), by mentioning the prospect here. note to Bethora at 2.521), we must look for a site well
3286
About 9 km (5.6 miles) further along the road E of Upper Beit-Horon. Bar Kochva (1981: 20) makes
from Gabaon. This is a tiring beginning to what will be a plausible case for a shorter interval than the whole
a terrible day. Going in this direction, the force will first column would require on the premise that the Judeans let
book two 375

[Judean] horde, having strung themselves out above the neck of the road,3293 kept coat-
ing the column with projectiles.3294 548 And there, with the infantry being completely
stumped3295 as to how to come to their own aid,3296 the predicament was yet more precari-
ous3297 for the cavalrymen. For they were not able to proceed in order3298 down the road,
while being bombarded, and the ascent up to the enemy was not horse-friendly:3299 549
this way and that were crags and ravines,3300 into which they fell and were obliterated.
One had neither a place for escape nor a plan for defense, but in utter helplessness3301
they were reduced to wailing and lamentation3302 in their despair,3303 whereas what sang out
in response from the Judean side was encouragement,3304 and the yell of those who were
rejoicing while also having become enraged.3305 550 They [the Judeans] very nearly3306

the lighter vanguard pass unmolested, and launched the ride up the Abu Shusha hill. At 3.16, the only other
attack at the pass only when the heavily armed legionary occurrence of ἱππάσιµος in Josephus (note again his
column had arrived. This would put the rear only about clustering tendency), terrain that is horse-friendly will
3 km behind, between hills 665 and 726, where there are be described as open plain—a point he makes often (cf.
indeed a couple of steep ravines beside the road. 2.12 and note).
3300
3292
See the previous note for a plausible location Josephus pairs κρηµνοί and φάραγγες a number
(somewhat E of Beit-Horon). of times (also 3.158; 4.8; 5.141) while describing impass-
3293
Bar-Kochva (1976: 19) proposes that the Judeans able terrain. Since in these pairings the two words mean
had taken the hill of Abu Shusha at the bend in the road distinct things—crags above the steep valleys below—,
that marked the beginning of the descent. They thus Josephus’ usage supports Bar-Kochva’s reading (1976:
dominated the road both to the E (where it sat between 19), based on the topography of Beit-Horon, that the
them and the Upper Beit-Horon hill) and to the N and Romans faced either crags above them or ravines below
W as it began the steep descent, with the steep wadi to (into which they fell): this way crags, that way ravines.
3301
the N. The hill would be a very effective site from which This is the cognate noun of the verb (participle)
to fire arrows or hurl stones on a column descending “stumped” at 2.545, 548. Josephus continues to drive
with difficulty (backs to the rebels) toward the W. And home the absence of the legions’ storied resourceful-
the relatively long exposure to the road from one hilltop ness.
3302
might justify the language about the rebels’ being lined The vocabulary of tragedy (here οἰµωγή, ὀδυρµοί)
up or strung out above the neck (or narrowest part) of provides one of War’s rich thematic veins, introduced
the road. already in the prologue. See the notes to “mourn over”
3294
See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48. and “calamities” at 1.9, “misfortunes” and “feeling” at
3295
See the note at the recent occurrence of this verb 1.11, and “unfortunate things” and “lamentations” at
(2.545). 1.12.
3296 3303
See the note to this unusual word at 2.388. See the note at 2.540: the rapid re-use of this
3297
Though it occurs only here in War (but Ant. 5.52, word (its only occurrences in bk. 2; cf. the cognate verb
139, 169; 6.213; 12.402), the adjective ἐπισφαλής (here at 2.551) draws attention to the reversal of Roman for-
comparative) is particularly well chosen. Josephus’ use tunes.
3304
of it with “predicament” makes it metaphorical, but This word (ἐγκέλευσµα) is attested only once in
its literal sense of slipperiness or insecure footing also Greek literature before Josephus (Xenophon, Cyn. 6.25),
applies here. and after him only in the 12th-century commentator on
3298
Greek οὔτε γὰρ ἐν τάξει κατὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ βαδίζειν Homer, Eustathius (Comm. Il. 3.137, 915), though it is
could mean either that, unlike the infantry, the cavalry used by Cicero to spice one of his Latin letters to Atti-
could not walk down the road in column (What to do cus (6.1.8), and so must have been known in the most
with their horses? [But nor could they use their horses to literate circles. Josephus will use it again in the Roman
advantage in this terrain]) or that, being higher and more narrative at Ant. 19.110 (providing further evidence that
conspicuous targets, they were getting hit more easily, he wrote that story).
3305
and the reactions of their horses made it impossible to This arresting combination of two opposite emo-
remain in order. tions (χαιρόντων ἅµα καὶ τεθυµωµένων) was antici-
3299
On Bar-Kochva’s reconstruction (1976: 19-20): pated at 2.474 (see note to “enraged” there).
3306
they could not possibly turn around and go up the nar- See the note to this phrase at 2.373.
row descent, into the approaching column, much less
376 book two

carried away the entire force, Cestius included, except that night intervened, during which
the Romans fled into Bethoren,3307 whereas the Judeans, who had occupied every place in
the vicinity,3308 kept guard over their exit route.3309
Cestius’ (19.9) 551 At this point Cestius, who had come to despair3310 of the clearly visible
midnight run
from Lower Beit
road,3311 was contemplating a dash.3312 So he singled out some 4003313 of the most con-
Horon fident3314 soldiers and placed them on top of the houses,3315 after giving orders to keep
calling out the signals of the guards in the camps,3316 so the Judeans would figure that the
entire force was remaining in place,3317 whereas he himself took the remainder with him
and quietly proceeded*3318 another thirty stadia.3319
552 At first light, when the Judeans perceived that their [the Romans’] quarters were
deserted, they ran at the 400 who had so deceived them3320 and shot them down quickly
with spears, then began to pursue Cestius. 553 But he had made considerable3321 gains dur-
ing the night and was fleeing even more compactly by daylight, inasmuch as the soldiers
had, in terror and alarm, abandoned the city-takers,3322 the sharpened-bolt launchers,3323

3307
This is presumably Lower Beit-Horon, at least σηµεῖα τῶν ἐν τοῖς στρατοπέδοις φυλάκων). At 3.86-87
for those near the front of the Roman column; see the Josephus will describe the Roman camp at night, claiming
note at 2.228. that even then nothing is done without orders conveyed
3308
Josephus’ language here (Ἰουδαῖοι δὲ πάντα τὰ by signals: the hours for sleep and for the guards’ shifts
κύκλῳ περισχόντες) reprises phrases from 2.523 and (τούς τε ὕπνους αὐτοῖς καὶ τὰς φυλακὰς) are given by
2.545. the trumpets’ signals (σάλπιγγες προσηµαίνουσιν). He
3309
Presumably, the main road leading further W from goes on to say that these signals are conveyed from the
Lower Beit-Horon. legionary commander down to the century level (3.87).
3310
Or “give up on.” This is the cognate verb to the See the note to “400” earlier in this section.
3317
noun used at 2.540, 549: see the notes there. Apparently Using a relatively few men to give the enemy
Cestius assumes that the Judeans will continue to con- the impression of a vastly larger force was a familiar
front him in the next phase, even if he does not know stratagem (Caesar in Bell. gall. 7.45; Josephus below at
that they are guarding the exit routes. 2.635-37; cf. Life 163-66).
3311 3318
Since Cestius cannot change the route, with thou- It is not entirely clear how Cestius’ large force
sands of soldiers along, he will try to make his progress managed this undetected, if the Judeans were closely
invisible (see next sentence). guarding that very road (as 2.550), unless we should
3312
δρασμὸν ἐβουλεύετο. This Herodotean phrase understand that the ruse involving the watchword-shout-
(5.124; 8.4, 18, 75, 97, 100), attested otherwise before ing should have lulled the Judeans into not watching the
Josephus only once in Philo (Fug. 14), is characteristic road after all.
3319
of War (1.286, 537; 3.93 [of Josephus himself]; 4.101). I.e., 6 km (3.75 miles). This distance would bring
Josephus appears to ride the crest of fashion again Cestius into the much gentler edge of the coastal plain,
(anticipated by Philo), for the phrase appears in Plutarch approximately at the junction of two main roads (one
(quoting Herodotus, Mor. [Her. mal.] 867b, e), Appian leading to Ammaus to the SW, one to Lydda via Modein
(Mithr. 328), Lucian (Herc. 3; Char. 21; Sat. 35), and to the W/NW—the one he took).
3320
Aristides (Panath. [Dindorf] p. 140). These are the 400 guards at 2.551.
3313 3321
Given a force of some 30,000, not counting “large Josephus uses litotes.
3322
numbers” of new auxiliaries, which Cestius had at the This is the first mention of the feared siege tower
beginning (2.500-502), this would be 1 guard for every (ἑλέπολις), which will turn up often—albeit only in
75 men, roughly one per century (formally comprising Roman hands—in the subsequent narrative (3.121, 226,
80). That makes sense in view of the normal transmission 230; 5.275-81, etc.): at 3.121, mules will carry these
of signals (see the note to “camps” in this section). (perhaps in sections) with Vespasian’s column as it enters
3314
This is the only occurrence of εὔψυχος in War Judea. For the employment of these machines, which
(though Ant. has it 10 times). were built partly to give attackers platforms above the
3315
These would be the flat upper stories of houses, city walls for more effective targeting (cf. Marsden 1969:
accessible by staircases, not tiled and sloped roofs in the 105-8), see 5.299; 6.23, 26, 221, 393.
modern western sense; cf. 4.28; Ant. 6.49; 13.140. The invention of this device, along with many other
3316
Or “watch-words” (προστάξας ἀναβοᾶν τὰ siege engines, was attributed to Demetrius the Besieger
book two 377

and the majority of their other implements, which the Judeans then took—and immedi-
ately began using against those who had left them.3324 554 So they advanced, pursuing the
Romans as far as Antipatris.3325
At that point, since they were not catching up, they turned around and began gathering
the machines, robbing the corpses, and collecting the spoils that had been abandoned, and
with victory songs3326 they ran back into the mother-city.3327 555 They suffered few losses
all in all, whereas they had done away with 5,300 infantry soldiers3328 of the Romans and
their allies, along with 480 cavalry.3329
This was all accomplished, then, on the eighth of the month Dius,3330 in the twelfth
year of Nero’s imperium.3331

(Poliorcetes) in approx. 307 BCE, as he sought ways to need to use this word, for he could have had the Judean
take the city of Salamis on Cyprus (Diodorus 20.48.2-3). soldiers singing hymns or psalms. At the story level, his
In Diodorus the structure appears as a massive 9-story language drives home the remarkable reversal: it was
affair of about 41 m (135 ft) height and 21.3 m (68 ft) the Greek and Roman soldiers who should have been
length on the ground, on wheels about 7.5 m (24 ft) high, singing paeans; the Judeans have unexpectedly taken
with battering rams and ballistae arranged on various this role. If there is any point in pressing the story for
levels. Plutarch (Dem. 21), however, associating it first historical realism, perhaps the Judeans were singing a
with Demetrius’ attack on Rhodes, trims the height by sarcastic paean.
3327
nearly a third. Clearly, the height and specific uses of See the note at 2.400.
3328
such a structure could vary according to need. This figure approximates the strength of a legion
3323
Josephus gives only ὀξυβελεῖς, which was stan- fully staffed. Clearly the 12th Legion suffered the most
dard shorthand for καταπέλται ὀξυβελεῖς, the main devastating losses (cf. 5.41), and it seems to have been
alternative to which were [καταπέλται] λιθοβόλα the one that lost its eagle (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5). But
(Marsden 1969: 1 nn. 1-2), which launched stones. the casualty figure (if accurate) includes soldiers from
Given that καταπέλται could describe either the stone- a wide range of units, including allied forces, and may
or the bolt-throwers—whereas Latin catapultae generally indeed represent the total losses on the Roman side from
indicated the latter (in contrast to ballistae)—it is curi- all phases of the campaign.
3329
ous that Josephus uses the distinctive formulaic phrase So MSS PL (followed by Niese, Thackeray,
[τούς] τε ὀξυβελεῖς καὶ καταπέλτας καὶ λιθοβόλα to Vitucci, and M-B). MSS AMVRC read “380.” The
describe Roman artillery in general (3.80; 5.14, 263; higher figure happens to reach the size of a full auxiliary
6.121). Since that collocation is attested beforehand cavalry wing (ala), comprising 16 turmae of 30-32 each
only in the famous passage on Demetrius Poliorcetes in (cf. Le Bohec 1994: 26); this could mean that an entire
Diodorus (20.48.1), there seems to be a good chance that wing was destroyed or that a copyist raised the number
Josephus found it there; it occurs again only in Appian for that purpose, or that Josephus did so.
3330
(Ib. 401; Lib. 375). See the note to “Artemisius” at 2.284: this is
3324
This is an ironic reprise of 2.548, where Cestius apparently Marcheshvan 8 (October-November).
3331
had been profoundly concerned to keep the machines For imperium, see the note at 1.3. Nero’s 12th year,
and instruments secure, precisely so that they did not counting by date of accession (dies imperii), was from
fall into Judean hands. At 2.564 Josephus claims that the October 13, 65 CE, to October 12, 66 CE. This should
goods (or money) taken from Cestius were in the hands therefore be Nero’s 13th year, if most scholars are correct
of Eleazar son of Simon. At 5.267 Simon son of Gioras in dating the outbreak of the revolt to spring/summer 66
will bring the engines that his group had taken from CE. But Kokkinos (1998: 368-95) offers a number of
Cestius; this may refer mainly to the incident at 2.521. arguments for redating the outbreak to 65 CE, consider-
3325
See the note at 2.513: Cestius is retracing his ing the reference to May-June (Artemisius) of Nero’s 12th
steps toward Antioch via Caesarea. year at 2.284 (see the note to “Nero’s imperium” there)
3326
Greek µετὰ παιάνων—the only occurrence of an error for his 11th year (spring, 65 CE), and regarding
the noun in Josephus. The term, which takes its name the present date as the accurate one: October-November
from being addressed in celebration to Paean-Apollo, is of 65, thus near the beginning of Nero’s 12th year. A
absent from Judean literature—as a Judean activity (at significant problem with the revised chronology is that
2 Macc 15:25 it is Nicanor’s army that sings them; simi- these events connect with Nero’s trip to Achaea, which is
larly Philo, Legat. 96, 110; Flac. 121). Josephus did not normally dated to the autumn of 66 (2.558 with notes).
378 book two

Eminent (20.1) 556 After the calamity3332 of Cestius,3333 many of the eminent3334 Judeans began,
Judeans flee as if from a sinking ship,3335 to swim away3336 from the city.3337 At any rate, Costobar and
Jerusalem. Life
47 Saul,3338 brothers, with Philip son of Iacimus3339—this was the camp prefect3340 of Agrippa

3332
A programmatic term (συµφορά), enhancing well-established context for the statesman-helmsman’s
the tragic tone of War and bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; primary duty to the polis, it is difficult to follow those
2.286. scholars who imagine Josephus here giving positive
3333
This (ἡ Κεστίου συµφορά) or the related ἡ value to aristocratic defection from the city as part of
Κεστίου πταῖσµα may have become a cliché in Jose- his putative apologetic program, to claim that aristo-
phus’ circles, both Roman and Judean, matching the crats generally supported Rome and opposed the war (J.
earlier clades Variana (“Varian disaster”); see the note Price 1992: 38-40; McLaren 1998: 95, 102; cf. Goodman
to “Cestius” at 1.21. 1987: 163). That these men were called “distinguished”
3334
See 2.243 and the note to “powerful [men]” at at their introduction (2.418) says nothing about Josephus’
2.239 for the use of such labels. view of their character; it has to do with irrefragable
3335
One of only 8 occurrences of βαπτίζω in War, social status. Clearly, those who stayed to lead the people
this one comes not long after the other one in bk. 2 (Josephus, Ananus, and others) are the ones worthy of
(2.476), where it has been used in a completely differ- praise in this narrative.
3338
ent context. See the note to these grandsons of King Herod at
3336
The colorful verb ἀπονήχοµαι appears only here 2.418, where they were dispatched to King Agrippa to
in Josephus; it is very rare before his time (Polybius seek military assistance, which then arrived under the
16.3.14—exactly this context of swimming away from leadership of Philip son of Iacimus.
a sinking ship), but becomes popular in the 2nd century 3339
In contrast to the Life, which discusses his activi-
(Plutarch, Publ. 16.8; 19.2; Caes. 49.7; Mor. [Tranq.] ties at length, War has mentioned this commander of
476a; [Vit. aer.] 831e; Arrian, Alex. 2.20.9, 22.5; Hist. Agrippa’s forces by name only at 2.421 above (see
ind. 23.3; Polyaenus, Strat. 4.7.4; Lucian, Tox. 6, 20, 21; the note there), though he has remained present in the
Athenaeus, Deipn. 7.48 [Kaibel]; Aelian, Nat. anim. 1.5; background; hence the need to identify him again. This
8.3, 19; 17.17). reminder of Philip’s mission from Agrippa also serves to
3337
This description is distinctly pejorative. This is distinguish him from Costobar and Saul, who are pre-
clear from the context, in which Costobar and Saul, who sented as abandoning their own city, whereas he was
fled the polis, are immediately contrasted with their rela- fleeing a city that had rejected his help. We do not hear
tive Antipas, who was above such self-serving flight, and what has become of his 2,000 cavalry or their com-
then with Josephus and his colleagues, who threw in their mander Darius (2.421), but perhaps we should assume
lot with the city, the land, and its people. The language that they served as an escort for the 3 men back to Syria,
derives its force from the well-worn image of the “ship Philip as commander standing for his army also.
3340
of state,” with the skilled helmsman steering it (see note Although he was introduced at 2.421 as “general,”
to “storm” at 2.396). Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch the title here is used of Philip also at Life 407; see the
makes clear the expectation that the helmsman belongs note ad loc. in BJP 9. “Camp prefect” is perhaps best
with the ship, especially in times of crisis and even when suited to his role after arriving in Jerusalem, where his
the state’s problems are not of his own making (Mor. royal cavalry were to protect the non-insurgent popu-
[Praec.] 815c-e): “he must not create storms himself, lace and the Roman auxiliary garrison of 500-1,000
but he must also not abscond when they descend; he (2.428-32). Since his troops were able to leave, whereas
must not stir up the polis and make it falter, but when it the Roman garrison that had taken refuge in the Herodian
is faltering and in danger he must help, just as a sacred palace was slaughtered (2.20-54), the accusation natu-
anchor. . .” Above all, he must “not remove himself from rally arose that Philip had sided with his Judean com-
the terrors facing the land. . . ; but, even if he had no patriots and betrayed the Romans (cf. Life 50, 182, 407
share in the failings of the masses, he must assume the with notes in BJP 9). The predictability of such charges,
risks on their behalf.” The masses are not able to handle especially the conspiracy theory connecting such a
the ship by themselves (cf. Polybius 6.44.4-6), whereas betrayal with an anti-Roman gambit by King Agrippa II
the aristocratic leader exists for this purpose. (Life 407), are so readily explained by the circumstances
Given Josephus’ evident disdain for those who fled that they cannot serve as compelling evidence of actual
the city in its time of need, the vivid and disparaging conspiracy (agreeing with J. Price 1991, contra Drexler
image (by no means “trite” as J. Price proposes), and the 1925: 306-12; Cohen 1979: 160-69).
book two 379

the king—fled from the city and went off to Cestius.3341 557 Now Antipas,3342 who was
besieged in the royal palace with these [men],3343 having disdained escape:3344 how he
was disposed of3345 by the insurgents3346 we shall explain in due course.3347 558 Cestius
dispatched3348 Saul’s group up to Achaea, to Nero,3349 so that they might explain their own
constraint3350 and also direct responsibility for the war3351 at Florus. For he [Cestius] hoped

3341
Life’s story is fundamentally different from these city by then, but falls victim to a purge of royals and
brief notices in War. There (Life 46-47) Philip flees other wealthy citizens.
3348
the Herodian palace only to face further threats from This is the last reference to Cestius Gallus’
Manaem’s insurgents (who here have given him safe activities in War: he disappears suddenly after having
passage: 2.437); Philip hides out with some relatives in dominated the narrative for a long period. He will be
Jerusalem for (only) 4 days before making his escape, mentioned several more times, but only in the memory
by wearing a disguise, to some villages near Gamala of this rout (3.9, 133, 414; 5.41, 267, 302; 6.338, 422;
in the Golan. There is no room in the later account— 7.18). Josephus will also report Nero’s disparagement
which Josephus might well have learned subsequently of Cestius’ generalship, without naming him, at 3.1-2.
from the history by Justus of Tiberias (Life 40, 336), Cestius apparently died at about the time of Vespasian’s
Philip’s relative by marriage (Life 178)—for Costobar arrival in early 67: Tacitus wonders whether, now close
and Saul, or their long stay in Jerusalem after the fall to 70 perhaps, Cestius died for normal reasons or from
of the garrison (to accommodate Cestius’ campaign and disgust and loathing at his failure (ubi fato aut taedio;
its failure). In that account there is also no possibility Hist. 5.10).
3349
of their heading as a group from Jerusalem to Cestius. Nero had departed Rome in September of 66 for
Each of these incompatible stories has its own internal a long-planned tour of Greece, during which he would
logic, which Josephus has apparently generated to make play at the artistic festivals and hope to win laurels
sense of whatever scraps of information he possessed. (Suetonius, Nero 22-25); during that tour he famously
Although it is tempting to look for a specific agenda in declared the freedom of Achaea—the whole province
Life’s reworking of the Philip story, virtually all of the (ILS 8794)—an act that would soon be reversed by Ves-
parallel material in War and Life is similarly irreconcil- pasian. Nero returned abruptly at the end of 67, reaching
able at key points, and any posited agenda leaves major Rome after delaying for some months in other Italian cit-
problems unresolved. ies (Malitz 2005: 88-96). He is in Greece now, therefore,
3342
Antipas is mentioned with Costobar and Saul at and he will still be there when he hears of Cestius’ defeat
2.418. They all visit Agrippa and apparently all return and sends Vespasian and Titus to deal with the Judean
with Philip to help fight the insurgents, in spite of their conflict (War 3.1-8); this passage anticipates that one.
advanced age (ca. 60). According to Life 407-9, it was months later than this
3343
See 2.429: though unnamed there, these were the episode in November/December of 66—namely, when
men who had made the embassy to Agrippa, who had Vespasian arrived in Tyre to prepare his invasion of Judea
recently taken refuge in the Herodian palace, though (early spring, 67 CE; cf. War 3.29, which does not how-
Costobar and Saul have now left. The siege: 2.431, ever mention a stop in Tyre)—that Vespasian rather than
437-39, 450-56. Nero heard the complaint against Philip (and Agrippa),
3344
The meaning seems to be that whereas Costobar and it was Vespasian who required the king to dispatch
and Saul “fled from the city” to Cestius (Philip being in Philip personally to Nero in Rome; once there, however,
a different category as Agrippa’s officer, sent from else- Philip was unable to see Nero because of the “civil war”
where), their companion Antipas courageously refused to and so returned to the king. That very different scenario
do so, threw in his fortunes with the city as the statesman allows for Philip’s pacification of Gamala after fleeing
should, and paid the ultimate price. It seems not to mean Jerusalem (Life 46-61), but it creates other chronological
that Antipas disdained escape from the Herodian palace problems: from late 66 through 67, Nero was indeed in
with the others (2.437), for the narrative insists that only Greece (as correctly here; cf. Bradley 1978; Malitz 2005:
the Roman garrison remained after the departure of the 88-89, 96-97; Dio 68.8.2, 68.19-20), whereas the Roman
royal contingent (2.438), and the Romans were all killed civil war did not begin until the revolt of Vindex in April
except Metilius (2.450-53). 68 CE—notwithstanding earlier reports of threats.
3345 3350
See the note at 2.541. This political use of ἀνάγκη to describe circum-
3346
See the note to this key word at 1.10. stances that limit a statesman’s freedom to act (cf. the
3347
The story is told at 4.140: according to the narra- note to “advantageous” at 2.346) was well established
tive Antipas has recovered standing and position in the by Josephus’ time (Polybius 16.20.2; 18.4.2, 11.8-9;
380 book two

that his [Nero’s] fury against that man would ameliorate his own risks.3352
(20.2) 559 Meanwhile the Damascenes,3353 once they learned about the loss3354 of the
Damascenes Romans, were eager to do away with the Judeans among themselves. 560 On the one hand,
avenge Roman
loss, kill 10,500
insofar as they were holding them in the gymnasium3355 (where they had been assembled a
Judeans among long time), having busied themselves3356 thus because of their suspicions,3357 they supposed
them that the project would be easy; on the other hand, they had come to be worried about their
own wives, who had all—but for a few—been attracted by the Judean worship.3358 561
Consequently, the biggest struggle for them was escaping their [the wives’] notice. But

3355
20.10.14-15; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 2.35.3; 3.12.3; 9.9.1; At the only other mention of gymnasia in War
Comp. verb. 18.73; cf. Eckstein 1995: 199-201). The (1.422), the audience has learned that King Herod
term may also have strong tragic overtones, relevant for donated them, along with theaters and temples, to several
War and possibly here, connoting the necessity by which Greek cities, including Damascus. So this very facility
people act even as they move inexorably toward their had been built by the famous Judean king, and this is
fated ends. a complete reversal of his efforts to establish friendly
3351
The question of who bears responsibility for the relations with Greek cities of the east. Every Greek city
war is a preoccupation of bk. 2: Florus is consistently the had a gymnasium: “the chief corner-stone of the edu-
chief culprit (2.296, 455, 532). At 2.404, 418 we have cational system” (Marrou 1956: 104). Dedicated to the
seen Judeans urgently trying to deflect blame (nefari- local Gods, it was a place of education for male teen-
ously engineered by Florus) from themselves to him. agers (roughly 15-17 years old), their passport to civic
Here Cestius, given his obvious failure both to prevent participation, as well as a venue for exercise and a sort
strife and to suppress it, joins the blame game. Within a of club for adult citizens. Those at Priene and Pergamum
few months of the debacle, Cestius will have died (see are fairly well preserved. On the size of the facility, see
the note at 2.280). the note to “10,500” at 2.561.
3356
3352
This entire analysis of Cestius’ psychology, depend- See the note at 2.259.
3357
ing on the factuality of the dispatch itself, appears to be Josephus’ Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will charge (7.238)
that the Damascenes did not even invent a reasonable
invented from whole cloth for narrative reasons. Jose-
pretext. In the narrative here, the massacre of Judeans
phus had no evident way of knowing Cestius’ thoughts,
at Caesarea (2.457), itself caused by long-standing con-
and the entirely different account in Life (see previous
flicts there and perhaps connected with the murder of
notes) puts it in serious doubt. At Ant. 17.154 Josephus
the Roman garrison in Jerusalem, has led Judean raiding
combines the cognate noun for this verb (κουφίζω) with
parties to attack the Syrian, Decapolis, and coastal cit-
this noun (κίνδυνος), though the phrase seems otherwise
ies (2.458-60). The Syrians responded (2.461-65), often
unattested in literature. by killing their Judean populations (2.477-80), events
3353
Although the city has appeared nearly a dozen exacerbated by the Judean attack on Scythopolis and its
times in bk. 1, this is the first reference to Damascus aftermath (2.466-77). So the logic here appears to be that
in bk. 2. The oldest continuously inhabited city in the the Damascenes had first interned their Judean residents,
world (today), its site was attractive for obvious reasons: out of suspicion that they would support outside Judean
the oasis of the Baradas (Chrysorhoas) River and the raids on the city, and they now massacre this group in
large fertile plain created by its run-off to the E of the response to the destruction of Cestius’ army.
city. All evidence indicates that the city, home of King 3358
On interest in Judean culture and worship, see the
Herod’s immensely learned courtier Nicolaus a century notes to “Judaize” and “circumcision” at 2.454. At 7.45
before these events, was a bastion of Greek culture. At Josephus will claim, consistently if remarkably, that the
the time of this episode, a temple to Zeus Damascenus Judeans of Syria “by constantly bringing a large number
was being built in the heart of the city. With the dimen- of Greeks over to their devotional practices, made them
sions of the grand temenos roughly 380 by 310 m (1,247 in a certain sense a part of themselves.” In that case,
x 1,017 ft), this was comparable in size to Herod’s rebuilt women are not singled out. In the final paragraphs of the
temple in Jerusalem, though a different shape (Millar Apion (2.282-86) he will insist that attraction to Judean
1993: 310-14). Damascus had occasionally fallen under law has spread far and wide, even among the masses.
Nabatean Arab control in the 1st centuries BCE and CE, Evidence is discussed at length, from very different per-
but by 63 CE (before this episode) it was again under spectives, in Feldman (1993: 177-446) and Goodman
Roman administration as part of Syria (Butcher 2003: 1994, summarily in Mason 1996: 187-93. For the attrac-
43, 96-98, 114). tion of élite women to Judean law, both historically and
3354
See the note at 2.51. rhetorically, see Matthews 2001.
book two 381

when they struck, since the Judeans were in a confined space3359 and all unarmed, within
a single hour they butchered3360 a total of 10,5003361 with impunity.3362
(20.3) 562 Those who had pursued Cestius, when they came back to Hierosolyma, Judeans appoint
began to bring over to their side those who were still Romanizing,3363 some by force and generals for war
others by persuasion,3364 and after assembling in the temple3365 they began appointing more
generals3366 for the war.3367 563 Yosep son of Gorion3368 was chosen as well as the high

3359
I.e., in the gymnasium. This may mean both that carried less-than-noble connotations. In the 2nd century
the Judeans were an easier target in such crowded quar- BCE the author of 2 Maccabees ironically adjusted
ters and that, since they were thus confined, the deed ἑλληνίζω, which had meant simply “to express one-
could be done without the perpetrators’ wives learning self in Greek” and its condition Ἑλληνισµός for the
of it. same purpose: to indicate the shameful adoption of a
3360
Or “slaughtered, sacrificed, cut the throats of.” Greek cultural program by Judean élites, to which he
See the similar phrasing (in relation to Caesarea) and contrasted (with another neologism) the noble counter-
note at 2.457. measure of Ἰουδαϊσµός—the ongoing condition of the
3361
To hold thousands of people (if the story is plau- verb ἰουδαΐζω (cf. Mason 2007c). The appearance of
sible), the gymnasium at Damascus must have had a ῥωµαΐζω in Josephus and his later Greek contemporaries
very large internal courtyard: 10,000 people would fill may result from their reappropriation of the older Greek
a modern football field if standing in ranks at twice style that marked this period.
the density of soldiers in close order. Later recalling We should not assume that the existence of a “Roman-
this event, Eleazar son of Ya‘ir will claim 18,000 vic- izing” group implies a simple polarization, such that
tims (7.368), though Josephus may deliberately have Ananus, Josephus, and the others were anti-Roman.
him exaggerate for rhetorical purposes—he also spells Josephus’ model Polybius claims that such a polarization
out “women and children”—what was already horrible was asserted in relation to Achaea, before the Roman
enough. Life 27 also recalls this massacre. Both of those senate, by the troublesome and deceptive sycophant
later recollections group this episode with the earlier Callicrates. He was pro-Roman, and presented everyone
Syrian massacres (2.461-86), whereas Josephus here iso- who did not share his views as anti-Roman (24.8-10;
lates the Damascene episode as a response to the defeat 30.13.2-11). Polybius himself, however, presents much
of Cestius—showing again the freedom he feels as a more complicated scenarios: each Greek city or league
creative author. had its “pro-Roman” elements—usually disliked by the
3362
See the notes to “amnesty” at 2.55 and “freedom masses (24.9.5)—but they were an extreme. Everyone
from fear” at 2.238. The adverb could mean that they else debated how best to deal with the reality of Roman
conducted the massacre confidently (without fear) or power. Callicrates was a Romanizer. Whereas Aristaenus
that they committed such a heinous act with a license and Philopoemen differed significantly from each other
or amnesty, because of deep hostility to the Judeans on on the best approach to Rome, neither could be called
the part of the Roman authorities. pro-Roman, even though they agreed on the need for at
3363
This is the only occurrence of ῥωµαΐζω in Jose- least limited cooperation with Rome (24.11-13). Polybius
phus, and the first attestation in Greek literature, though admires both men, because they both offered reasoned
from now on the verb begins to be used heavily by oth- arguments based upon the advantage of Achaea. So also
ers: Dio Chrysostom (Or. 37.4), Appian (Annib. 177-78; in Josephus’ Jerusalem, his views and those of the lead-
Lib. 304-5; Mac. 7.1; Illyr. 40; Mithr. 5, 107, 109, 182; ers he respects are nuanced, not “pro-Roman”—even
Bell. civ. 1.5.41; 2.13.91), Philostratus (Vit. Apoll. 5.36), though they recognize the practical need for ultimate
Cassius Dio (50.6.4; 51.1.5). Once again (see Introduc- cooperation with the great power (e.g., 2.651; 3.135-37;
tion) Josephus stands at the beginning of a trend. 4.316-20).
3364
In form the verb belongs to a class that had gained For this familiar pair of alternatives, see the note
prominence during the Persian and then Peloponne- to “force” at 2.8.
3365
sian wars, half a millennium earlier: µηδίζω, περσίζω, That is, the large temple precinct (τὸ ἱερόν) cov-
λακωνίζω, ἀττικίζω—indicating political alignment ering the whole platform built by King Herod, not the
with another (normally greater) city or power, usu- inner shrine complex (ὁ ναός). See the note to “shrine”
ally a forced choice for weaker states in times of crisis at 1.10.
3366
(e.g., “Atticize or Laconize?”); cf. Thucydides 3.61.2; The significance of “more” is unclear, since this
Xenophon, Hell. 6.3.14. Even if it was unavoidable, the appears to be a new and methodical exercise in select-
identification with foreign states implied by the verb ing commanders, which does not assume continuity on
382 book two

priest Ananus3369 to be supreme commanders3370 of everything throughout the city, and in

particular to raise higher the city’s walls. 3371 564 Eleazar son of Simon,3372 although he
had made over to himself the Romans’ plunder and the goods that had been seized from
Cestius3373—and besides these, much from the public treasuries3374—they nevertheless
did not assign official functions,3375 because they had observed that he was tyrannical3376

the basis of previous command (cf. Eleazar in 2.564). attained the high priesthood in the decades before 70 CE
3367
This passage, with much of what follows, has gen- (Ant. 20.198)—Ananus II served briefly as high priest
erated vast scholarly discussion because of its conflict in 62 CE, when he presided over the death of James,
with Life (26-29), which has Josephus and two priestly brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Josephus’ later account
colleagues chosen to visit Galilee, not to prepare for war of that episode (Ant. 20.173-203) is scathing, denounc-
but to calm the restive areas in Galilee, disarming the ing the high priest’s Sadducean propensity to savagery
militants and waiting to see what the Romans would do in punishments. In Life (193-96, 216, 309), however,
after Cestius’ debacle (e.g., Luther 1910: 16-17; Drexler Josephus appears once again basically respectful, though
1925: 299-302; Laqueur 1920: 103-4; Thackeray 1929: he regrets that even this upright former high priest was
10-11; Shutt 1961: 3, 37-41). Although the two accounts susceptible to bribery by John of Gischala.
3370
are not strictly contradictory on this matter (there are Josephus’ chosen term αὐτοκράτορες was the
related contradictions), they create quite different impres- standard Greek equivalent of Latin imperatores, and its
sions. See the fuller discussion throughout BJP 9. other 21 occurrences in War all refer to Roman generals/
3368
For the name Yosep, see the note at 2.74. At 2.451 emperors. Josephus apparently intended such associa-
Josephus has mentioned a Gorion son of Nicomedes, tions here for the benefit of his Roman audience.
3371
as one of those who offered a deceitful pledge of safe Jerusalem already had strong walls in various
passage to the Roman garrison; but that person may be configurations, those around the temple, the Antonia, and
from a different family (see the note there). At 4.159 a Herod’s palace being particularly solid and high. Agrippa
Gorion son of Josephus will appear, speaking for Ananus I had begun a grand wall that would have included the
II (with Simon son of Gamaliel) against the Zealots. It vulnerable newer areas, but died before its completion;
is inherently likely that these two men are connected, Josephus remarks that, had he completed it, the Romans
either by a simple confusion of names in the MS tradi- would have a much harder task (cf. 2.218-19 and note to
tion (so Drexler 1925: 299-300) or as father and son. The “wall” there). At 5.155 Josephus will note that Jerusa-
last-named seems identical also with the distinguished lem’s defenders did hurriedly raise that wall to a height
victim of the Zealots (Gourion) at 4.358, killed for envy of some 37 ft (12 m). This passage apparently indicates
of his wealth and authority, and because of his frankness the beginning of that effort.
3372
of speech; Josephus speaks highly of his free mind and It is typical of Josephus’ narrative art that he now
love of the people. returns to an episode already related (2.554), to draw
It is a puzzle that, although this Joseph is named as out a new element—Eleazar’s prominence in it. This
one of the two supreme commanders here, he quickly is the first certain mention of a man who will become
fades from view. It is rather Jesus (son of Gamaliel or an important leader for a time, by breaking away from
Gamalas) who appears as joint commander with Ananus John of Gischala’s Zealots (5.5-7, 12, 21). The two fac-
in the later narrative (4.238, 248-50), as also through- tions will eventually reunite against Simon son of Gioras
out in Life (193). Josephus does not explain the shift, (5.99-105, 250-51). Eleazar may, however, be mentioned
though it is not hard to conjecture reasons in times of already at 4.225 (in view of 5.5), as the most effective
war (death or injury, crises requiring his attention, a and influential member of the Zealots and as a priest
change of mind). (confirming the significant priestly leadership of the rebel
3369
See the note to his father at 2.240. Ananus II will movement[s]), even though “son of Gion” has the best
remain a central figure in War: he will prepare Jeru- MS support (PAL Latin; the others have “son of Simon”)
salem for war (2.648-54); his eventual murder along and is preferable as the “more difficult reading.”
3373
with his colleague Jesus, and Josephus’ encomium on The story is in 5.554 above.
3374
the pair, will provide the fulcrum of the entire War at See the note to “treasury of God” at 2.50. This
4.314-25 (see Introduction). Cf. 4.151, 160-62, 193-238. was evidently the temple treasury, and Eleazar’s use of
Son of the high priest Ananus I—in office during the its funds appears to imply Josephus’ criticism.
3375
first period of direct Roman rule (6-15 CE) and so an This claim offers an indirect challenge to the com-
eminent figure, influential also through his 5 sons who mon view that anyone involved in the defense of Judea,
book two 383

and that the devotees under him3377 were adopting the habits of spear-bearers.3378 565
Incrementally,3379 to be sure, both the need for the goods3380 and Eleazar’s acting the en-
chanter3381 bamboozled3382 the people, resulting in their obeying him in all matters.
(20.4) 566 For Idumea3383 they selected different3384 generals: Iesous son of Sapphas,3385
one of the chief priests,3386 and Eleazar, son of the high priest Neus.3387 The man who

such as Josephus, must have been an enthusiastic sup- might be rendered in American English “he made an
porter of the rebellion (e.g., Luther 1910: 7; Laqueur end run around” or “danced around” the populace. This
1970 [1920]: 258-59; Drexler 1925: 299; Cohen 1979: is distinctive Josephan language: before his 13 occur-
152-54 [but 183]; Goodman 1987: 167; Price 1992: 32; rences, it is attested only 8 times in all Greek literature,
Mader 2000: 1-18). Josephus claims that some of the chiefly in fragments of Phylarchus, Megasthenes, and
most zealous rebels (at least Simon here) were excluded Nicolaus after the astronomer Autolycus; Polybius has
on moral grounds, whereas those placed in supreme it once (10.31.3).
3383
command, with whom Josephus himself was allied, were See the note at 2.43. With close ties to Judea from
more evenly tempered and hoped to find a peaceful solu- the Hasmonean period onward (1.68; Ant. 13.254-58),
tion (Ananus: cf. 2.64-51; 4.318-25). Whether this analy- cemented by the family of Herod, which originated there,
sis may be discarded as mere post factum rationalization the Idumeans will become major players in the main
remains to be seen: it happens to accord with principles phases of the war: 4.224-36, 270-326, 345-53, 566-70;
developed already by Polybius and evident in Plutarch’s 5.248-49, 290, 358; 6.148, 378-81; 7.267.
3384
essay on Political Precepts. It is difficult to imagine how “Different”: separate from the supreme command-
Josephus could have absorbed such a complex thought ers in Jerusalem, presumably, though possibly distinct
structure in the short period between the war and his from the commander already in place, Niger.
3385
time of writing in the early 70s. This man is otherwise unknown. The person with
3376
See the note to “tyrants” at 1.10—a fundamental the similar name at 2.599 is excluded by his being a
theme of War . member of the Tiberian council.
3377 3386
Or “the Zealots under him” as the later group Josephus emphasizes the class distinction: the
name: see the note at 2.444. Although the specific group Judeans were wise enough at first to choose the most
of “those called Zealots” will be clearly indicated only eminent men to conduct the conflict: all men of the high-
at 2.651 and later, and the Greek word has a common est possible breeding and character, irrespective of their
generic meaning (as at Life 11 of Josephus’ relation- personal views on the war. It is understood that they will
ship to Bannus), the deliberate construction here (“the be most committed to the wisest political solution.
3387
ζηλωταί under him” rather than simply “his”) and the This name makes little sense as it stands (Νέος,
fact that Eleazar will be named among the Zealot leaders “young, new”), because it is Greek, and because no high
(4.225), before creating a splinter group (5.5-7), suggest priest is attested with this name, though we have a more
that Josephus has the specific group in mind here. Since or less complete list for this period. Either for this rea-
he has not yet explained the distinction to his audience, son or because nothing stood in the text, the Latin and
however, and the generic meaning of the word also yields Ps-Hegesippus (the earliest witnesses to the text) omit
a tolerable sense, my translation continues to evoke the this name. Hudson emends it to “Ananias” (Ἀνανίου).
sense that an audience would most likely have under- Pelletier (ad loc.) mentions Ant. 20.197-99, which uses
stood. the terms “older” and “younger” of the two high priests
3378
Having “spear-bearers” is a frequent concomi- named “Ananus,” and wonders whether the “young”
tant of tyrannical aspiration; see the note to this word here might have been an appellation for Eleazar’s father
at 2.262. Ananias here, likewise to distinguish him from an older
3379
See the references in the note to his name at namesake. That seems unlikely, however, since one would
2.564. normally use the comparative, as in the analogy. At any
3380
I.e., what was plundered from Cestius (as 2.554, rate, some emendation seems necessary.
564). If Josephus wrote a father’s name here then Ananias is
3381
See the note to this word at 2.261 (here in the the best possibility (Thackeray in LCL, Pelletier, M-B),
cognate verb). and if that conjecture were correct then this Eleazar
3382
Josephus uses the doubly compound verb would be the temple commandant who initiated the
ἐκπεριέρχοµαι only here and at 2.519 (recently) in War , serious movement to war at 2.409-10. That would raise
though 11 times in Antiquities. In all other cases but Ant. interesting but currently insoluble questions, since that
16.190 the sense is literal. Here it is metaphorical and man has consistently appeared as opposing the older
384 book two

was in charge of Idumea at the time, Niger3388—[his] ancestry was from Perea across the
Jordan,3389 for which reason he was called “the Perean”3390—, they ordered to submit to the
generals. 567 They did not neglect3391 the other territory,3392 but Yosep [son] of Simon3393
was sent into Hierichous [Jericho],3394 Manasses3395 into Perea, and Ioannes the Essaeus3396
to be general for the toparchy3397 of Thamna.3398 Also allotted3399 to him were Lydda3400 and

chief priests and their allies. But a war-time government posterity—the “half-tribe” W of the Jordan—came to
must often combine varied and otherwise contradictory be included among the 12 tribes of Israel (Gen 41:51;
figures. 46:20; 48:5-20); but just as famously, Manasseh was a
If this Eleazar were simply the son of the current high Judahite king who reversed his father Hezekiah’s mono-
priest (and the name Neos does not belong at all), with theistic reforms (2 Kgs 21:1-17; 23:26, notwithstanding
the Latin translations, Eleazar’s father would be Matthias the revisionist note of repentance at 2 Chron 33:13). This
son of Theophilus (Ant. 20.223). figure appears only here.
3388 3396
See the note to this figure at 2.520, his first ap- Since Josephus uses Ἐσσαῖος for the singular
pearance. Niger is partly comparable to the Eleazar just form of “Essene” (1.78; 2.113; Ant. 17.346) and remarks
mentioned: although he played a distinguished role in the that the group known to his audience as Ἐσσηνοί (plu-
defeat of Cestius (2.520), he must be subordinated to the ral; Ant. 15.371-72) are called by the Judeans Ἐσσαῖοι,
supreme high-priestly commanders. He is different from most scholars (e.g., Whiston, Thackeray in LCL, Pel-
Eleazar, however, in that he will meet a noble end in the letier) have understandably assumed that John was an
story: like Ananus and Jesus, even he will be done in by Essene. The form would also serve, however, for a native
the radical warmongers, in spite of his courageous deeds of Essa (Ant. 13.393), which M-B seem to favor by trans-
on their behalf (3.11, 20, 25, 27-28—which Josephus as lating Essäer (cf. Schalit 1968: s.v.). The latter option
narrator tragically admires), allegedly out of fear because has in its favor that men were normally identified either
of his bravery. On their heads he will invoke, as he dies, by their father or by their place of origin, as indeed all
the programmatic drought, plague, civil war, and faction- the others in this paragraph are. This is especially clear
alism that will indeed come to pass (4.359-64). at John’s next appearance (War 3.11), where he is named
3389
See the notes at 2.43, 57. alongside Niger the Perean and Silas the Babylonian.
3390
This is a striking accommodation to Josephus’ By contrast, when Josephus introduces someone as a
audience: he must explain why Niger was called the Pharisee, Sadducee, or Essene, he usually explains that
Perean while also explaining which Perea (in distinction a school affiliation is in view (1.78; 2.113; Ant. 13.293;
from several Pereas in Greece—lit. “the area across X”) 17.346; 20.199; Life 191, 197), though Ant. 15.3, 370 are
was meant. somewhat comparable to this formulation.
3391
Or: “they took great care over” (litotes). Since Essa appears in Josephus as another name
3392
At 3.54 Josephus will explain that Jerusalem is for the Decapolis city of Gerasa (Ant. 13.393; cf. War
sui generis, standing above the other toparchies as the 1.104), this reading might create a coincidental parallel
head stands above the body. The following sites corre- with Simon son of Giora, a major leader in the later
spond largely to the list of 11 toparchies, or administra- revolt who came from Gerasa (4.503).
3397
tive districts, at 3.54-55. Missing are Pella, En Gedi, See 2.98 and note: toparchies, equivalent to “cle-
and Herodium, for understandable reasons: they are in ruchies” (3.54-55; cf. Pliny, Nat. 5.70), were Judean
the opposite direction from the Roman advance (from administrative districts, of which there were 11.
3398
the N and W). Thamna (Timnah: Gen 38:12-14; Josh 15:10-57)
3393
This Joseph (an extremely common name, as was was a natural and longstanding regional center, on
his father’s; see the note to “Yosep” at 2.74) is otherwise the principal road SE from Caesarea via Antipatris
unknown. (Aphek)—the course chosen by Vespasian (4.443)—and
3394
The ancient oasis city and toparchic center at the possibly on a minor N-S route (see the note to “Arous”
W edge of the Jordan River valley, NE of Jerusalem; see at 2.69), a toparchic center mentioned in 3.55 and Pliny,
the note at 2.57. Control of this site would block a major Nat. 5.70. With the addition of two other toparchies and
artery from the N and give access to the Dead Sea region the coastal site of Joppa (following), John has been
with its countless possibilities for refuge. entrusted with the major swath of the Judean heartland
3395
Manasseh (‫ )מנשה‬is not among the commonly in the coastal plain WNW of Jerusalem, strategically
attested names of the period. This may be in part because crucial for blocking a Roman advance by all the standard
of its checkered history: on the one hand, Manasseh was routes. As J. Schwartz observes (1991: 72), of the sites
the first-born son of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt, whose under his command Thamna was best suited for John’s
book two 385

Yoppa3401 and Ammaus.3402 568 Of the Gophnite3403 and Acrabettene3404 [regions] Ioannes Josephus
[son] of Ananias3405 was appointed*3406 commander, and of each of the two Galilees3407 assigned
command
Yosep [son] of Matthias.3408 Gamala,3409 strongest of the cities in this [region],3410 was also of Galilee;
included under this man’s generalship. organizes local
government.
Life 29

3404
headquarters because it would be least exposed to heavy At the SE extremity of Samaria, bordering Judea
Roman onslaughts. But see 4.443-44: the entire region proper; see the note at 2.235.
3405
falls quickly to Vespasian. This John (among the commonest names of the
3399
This is the only occurrence of προσκληρόοµαι in time) appears only here in Josephus. He may be another
Josephus. It is a distinctively Philonic compound verb, son of Ananias the high priest, in addition to Ananus
occurring a remarkable 31 times in his corpus (e.g., Cher. and Eleazar (see 2.243 and note). That would explain
77; Sacr. 6, 7, 119; Plant. 61; Conf. 111; Div. 278; Dec. his high status, but not Josephus’ omission of the infor-
108; Spec. 3.178; Legat. 68)—remarkable because it is mation here.
3406
attested only once before Philo (Diodorus 3.18.2), once Josephus frequently switches to the present tense
in Josephus’ contemporary Plutarch (Mor. [Quaest.] to highlight the main action; here the present serves as a
738d), and rarely after that, from the 3rd century. We see subtle way of highlighting his own role, which he men-
again the Philonic quality of Josephus’ diction. tions last with apparent humility.
3400 3407
Lod, a toparchic center (3.54-55) near the W Already in the prologue (1.22) Josephus antici-
extremity of Judea proper; see the note at 2.242. Con- pated his forthcoming description of the two Galilees
trolling this site alone, given its location at the primary (3.35-44), which is crucial for setting the scene of his
junction of W Judea’s coastal plain (shephelah; cf. J. main activities as general. He mentions the division
Schwartz 1991: 23-24), would prevent Roman access again at 2.573, accommodating his audience by refer-
by the normal routes to Jerusalem: that used by Ces- ring to “what is called Lower Galilee.”
3408
tius (2.516), via Beit-Horon and Gibeon, and the more Thus our author introduces himself for the first
southerly route via Ammaus. But Judean control of all time into the narrative, in which he will now play a
these areas collapsed quickly after Vespasian’s arrival significant role. See also his personal remarks in the
(4.130, 444). prologue (esp. 1.1-17) and, for his ancestry, Life 1.1-6
3401
Although Joppa (Yafo, Jaffa, just S of mod. Tel with commentary in BJP 9. Until this point Josephus has
Aviv) was not a toparchic center, Josephus will men- seldom used the 1st person singular pronoun—in occa-
tion it alongside that list because it serves as “leader” sional editorial musings: 2.151, 156, 191, though not in
of its surrounding region (3.56). As a port city (now reference to himself as character—and in the sequel it
completely overshadowed by Caesarea to the N; Joppa will remain rare: once in bk. 2 (quoting his own speech
seems to have remained Judean), it had strategic value: at 2.605), 9 times in bk. 3, 7 times in bk. 4, 7 times in
those possessing it could hope to harass both military bk. 5, 19 times in bk. 6, not at all in bk. 7, almost all of
traffic on the coastal road from N or S and enemy ship- which concern his thoughts as narrator. He will refer to
ping between Alexandria and Caesarea or Antioch (as his character most often in the 3rd person, as here—30
indeed happens at 3.414-27). times in the remainder of bk. 2, some 54 times in bk.
3402
This was a toparchic center (3.54-55) on one of 3. Cf. Caesar’s famous 3rd-person self-references in his
the main W-E roads from coastal Joppa to Jerusalem; 7- (later 8-) volume history, The Gallic War.
3409
see the note at 2.63. Gamala (named for its camel-back ridge between
3403
Gophna (mod. Jifna) sat about about 20 km (12.5 two hills), in the Golan to the E of Lake Kinneret, was
miles) N of Jerusalem, on the road from Shechem/ introduced in 1.105 as a resistant fortress taken by Alex-
Neapolis (Nablus) in Samaria—the route taken by Titus ander Janneus, and mentioned again as one of the sites
(5.50)—where it joined the route coming SE from Cae- rebuilt by the Roman Gabinius ca. 56 BCE (1.166). It
sarea and Antipatris. It was another strategically impor- is now part of King Agrippa II’s territory (2.247; 3.56),
tant site and a toparchic center, mentioned by Josephus which Josephus as rebel commander will nonethe-
as second to Jerusalem (3.55). Vespasian will leave this less claim, along with Agrippa’s cities of Tiberias and
region along with Acrabatene until he has taken the Tarichea in Galilee. Josephus will describe the site in
coastal plain (4.444), but he seems to encounter little detail at 4.2-10, just before its capture by Vespasian.
difficulty (4.551). It will have a Roman garrison by the See the note to “Ioudas” at 2.118 and Life 46-61—where
time Titus resumes the campaign (5.50), and will serve Josephus first investigates the situation in Gamala on
as a sanctuary for high-profile Judean deserters (6.115- his arrival in Galilee—along with the notes to the latter
118). passage and archaeological information in BJP 9. But
386 book two

(20.5) 569 For their part, each of the other generals was administering what had been
entrusted to him with the eagerness or shrewdness3411 that he possessed; Yosep, after com-
ing into Galilee, turned his thoughts first to the goodwill of the locals towards himself,3412
knowing that he would set most things right by this [means]3413 even if in the other respects
he should fail completely.3414 570 Realizing that he would win over to his side the power-
ful [men],3415 for their part, by sharing authority with them,3416 and the entire mob,3417 for
their part,3418 if he would issue orders in general through locals and familiar [men],3419
he selected the seventy most prudent of the elders3420 and established them as leaders3421
of all Galilee, 571 and seven in each city as judges of less significant disputes.3422 The
larger matters and the murder trials3423 he directed [them] to send up to himself and the
seventy.
Josephus (20.6) 572 After he had settled the legal issues for each city, pertaining to one another,
fortifies he moved on to their external security. 573 Recognizing that the Romans would engage
Galilean towns.
Life 187 first in Galilee,3424 he began building walls appropriate to the locations:3425 Iotapata,3426

3417
whereas Philip son of Iacimus is described in the Life Josephus here omits the description of his first
passages as keeping Gamala loyal to King Agrippa and ploy in Life (77-78), which involved neutralizing the mil-
the Romans, at Life 185-86 Josephus reports that Gamala itants (“bandits”) already in Galilee by extracting from
defected from them and sought assistance from him— the populace protection money, to keep them out of the
extra forces and fortification of the walls—both of which towns and cities unless called for. See BJP 9 ad loc.
3418
requests he granted. See further 2.575 and note. This distinction between the élite and the masses,
3410
The reasons for this strength are explained at and the different means for winning over each group,
4.2-10. is a consistent feature of Josephus’ narrative world; cf.
3411
The distinction (προθυµία ἢ σύνεσις) is not 2.193, 199, 241-43.
3419
attested as a cliché. It implies a wry view of Josephus’ I.e., people known and trusted by the locals. This
colleagues: some had more enthusiasm than military is classic imperial strategy, followed also by the Romans
cleverness; for others, the case was reversed. (as by some predecessors and many followers).
3412 3420
Cf. Life 30-61, where Josephus describes his first In the ideal world of the Mishnah (Sanh. 1.5-6;
task in Galilee as understanding the situation and the 2.4) the court of 71 constituted the Great Sanhedrin
people’s moods in the various locales. (‫) סנהדרין גדולה‬, which alone could decide various
3413
This is a remarkable statement, since the “other weighty matters, e.g.: judging a false prophet, a high
respects” in which he might fail would include losing in priest, or a tribe, or declaring war. This principle was
his theater of the war. Yet Josephus’ sentiments accord based on Moses’ precedent in gathering 70 elders to sup-
with the value system articulated in authors from Poly- port him (Num 11:16).
3421
bius to Plutarch: one’s first and main responsibility as Or, more technically: “magistrates, chiefs, ar-
a statesman is to identify with the people in one’s care, chons” (ἄρχοντες). See the note to “magistrates” at
and to do the best for them in the circumstances; out- 2.216. Archons, in various numbers and configurations,
comes are not within one’s control (in keeping with Stoic were chief magistrates of several Greek cities.
3422
views): Polybius 24.11-13; Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] 799b- The 7 in each city do not appear in Life 79. Their
801c; 815c-e. function is puzzling, since each town, certainly a city
3414
Josephus’ character contrasts the same verbs in such as Tiberias (cf. Life 69 and notes in BJP 9), already
his speech at 5.390. had its own local leadership, and this arrangement lacks
3415
See the note at 2.239. the motive of either keeping the leadership nearby (as
3416
Life 79 gives this episode a different look. There with the 70) or exercising personal control (since the 7
Josephus, having arrived to find a restive population, would be local men and not easily accountable for trivial
takes 70 of the Galilean leading men with him “on a matters). The system does have an attractive symmetry,
pretext of friendship” as hostages to the people’s loy- however, and that may be sufficient explanation (as liter-
alty. He presents himself there as making the rounds to ary creation) of its appearance here.
3423
hear cases, as a governor would, with this group of 70 M. Sanh. 1.4 has murder trials judged before a
in attendance as his traveling companions. Although he sanhedrin of 23.
3424
defers to their judgement, this is a clever ploy to keep Although this perception might simply reflect
them and the people loyal. hindsight, it did not require prophetic abilities, since the
book two 387

Bersabe,3427 and Selame;3428 also Capharecho,3429 Iapha,3430 Sigoph,3431 the mountain that
is called Itabyrion,3432 Tarichea, and Tiberias;3433 in addition to these he built walls at the

Romans were based in Antioch to the N, and generals sections of casemate wall filled in with boulders and
from Quintilius Varus (2.68) to Cestius Gallus (2.503-6, house rooms strengthened with soil infilling from the
510-12) had first attacked Galilee. time of the war—as ballista balls and arrowheads reveal
3425
The parallel summary passage in Life (186-88) (see Aviam 2002).
3427
comes later in the narrative, relative to Josephus’ Gali- This is Galilean Beer-Sheva, just N of Kefar
lean command, after he has already related much con- Hananiah at the E end of the Beit-Kerem valley, cited
cerning some of these walls: Gischala (70-72), Tiberias by Josephus later (War 3.39) as marking the N extremity
and Tarichea (142-44), and Gamala (47-61, 114, 186). of Lower Galilee.
3428
There it is his account of building Gamala’s walls, in This and the parallel at Life 188 are the only refer-
response to a request after the town revolts from Agrippa, ences to the site in Josephus, usually identified as the vil-
that leads him to summarize the similar achievements lage of Salameh on the W bank of the Zalmon River.
3429
elsewhere. But those individual stories, along with their Called Capharath at Life 188, this appears to be
later parallels in the present work, are enough to show the village of Kefar Ata: it is mentioned by Josephus
that this opening summary is a literary construction: only here and in the parallel.
3430
it misleadingly implies that after setting up an inter- Iapha is generally identified with the village of
nal administrative-legal system Josephus immediately Yaphi’a (Japhia), about 1.85 miles (nearly 3 km) SW of
and systematically turned his attention to fortifying the Nazareth, N of Wadi Kishon. For the MS difficulties at
towns, though in fact each case must have arisen from Life 188, see BJP 9 and notes there.
3431
particular circumstances. This name does not appear in the Life parallel.
In the list of fortifications here, Sigoph, Sepph, Sep- Since these sites are said to be in Lower Galilee, and
phoris, and Gischala pose particular problems, the first 3 War misses Sogane in that region (Life 188), and they
being absent from the Life parallel (see following notes). begin with the same consonants, it is widely held that
Missing here, in contrast to Life’s list, are the Cave of they are the same place: the modern village of Sakhnin
Arbela, though it is alluded to in his reference to the (Sachnin).
3432
caves, Sogane in Lower Galilee (but see “Sigoph”), and This is Josephus’ name for Mt. Tabor, roughly in
the peculiar Komos, which is apparently a MS prob- the center of the range of hills in Lower Galilee occupy-
lem. Some of the same places are represented differ- ing the SW quadrant of a circle centered in Lake Kin-
ently in the Greek of the two narratives, and the MSS of neret. The summit does not seem to have been normally
both texts are full of difficulties, representing either the inhabited, but it served as a natural place of refuge
scribes’ bafflement or their attempt to “correct” the text in times of conflict (cf. already 1.177). Josephus will
(see BJP 9 and notes ad loc.). For all the parallel cases, mention his building of Tabor’s walls again (3 miles’
the reader is referred to BJP 9, the notes to §§ 186-89, worth, he claims in a gross exaggeration) as he describes
and Appendix A in that volume, especially the section of the capture of the site by Vespasian’s general Placidus
the appendix entitled “The Walled Towns of Josephus.” (4.54-61). He also claims there that he had stored water
3426
Mod. Yodefat. This naturally defended, keyhole- and grain on the mountain in preparation for a siege.
3433
shaped hill, recently excavated (see BJP 9 as previous Tarichea, 30 stadia (3.75 m., 6 km) N of Tiberias
note), will play a central role in bk. 3 as the place of around the middle of the W shore of Lake Kinneret,
Josephus’ last stand and surrender (3.141-339). In Life will provide Josephus’ main base in the lake area and a
(§ 234) we learn that the town was friendly to Jose- frequent refuge from the more overtly troublesome city
phus when he was challenged by the delegation from of Tiberias—dynamics that Life will explore in some
Jerusalem, offering him a safe redoubt. Its location was detail. Even War ’s narrative, however, exposes the prob-
excellent, protected from the Beit Netofa valley by Mt. lems with including these two cities in this simple and
Atzmon, but still easily reachable, with lines of escape to seemingly systematic list of fortifications. At 2.606-610
E and W: close enough to the valley that Josephus would (cf. Life 141-44) Josephus will describe how his efforts
know what was happening there, and close to many vil- to return captured plunder to King Agrippa II put him
lages in his charge, yet far enough from Tiberias and in danger of his life, for betraying the rebel cause. As a
Tarichea on Lake Kinneret, with which he had a dif- stratagem only, he claimed that in fact he was preserv-
ficult relationship. Excavations at Iotapata have made ing the money for building up the walls of Tarichea (the
it a showcase for Josephus’ “accuracy” (on a par with place where he was) and, when the Tiberians and other
Gamala in this respect): an assault ramp against the wall, visitors objected, he assured them that he would build
388 book two

caves3434 around the shore of Gennesar3435 down in what is called Lower Galilee,3436 and
in Upper Galilee [around] the rock called Acchabaron,3437 Sepph,3438 Iamneith,3439 and Me-
ro.3440 574 In Gaulanitis3441 he fortified Seleuceia3442 as well as Sogane3443 and Gamala.3444
The Sepphorites3445 alone he allowed3446 to build up3447 a city wall of their own accord,3448

walls for them also. Evidently, both places will still be and Sogane here, although according to Life they did not
in need of fortification at that point. join the revolt until much later, and the next we hear of
3434
Josephus must be referring to the Cave(s) of them in War (4.4), Josephus remarks that their loyalty
Arbela, one of the few sites from Life 187-88 omitted to Agrippa had been secured “at the beginning of the
in this list. Near the shoreline N of Tiberias, these caves revolt” (unlike that of Gamala). Josephus’ later descrip-
had a long history as hiding places for rebels of all kinds: tions of the whole region in War (3.37, 56) continue to
from the Seleucid general Bacchides (Ant. 12.421) and describe it as Agrippa’s territory.
from a young Herod (War 1.304-6; Ant. 14.415). 3442
Many cities of this name were founded across the
3435
I.e., the Kinneret or Sea of Galilee. former Seleucid empire. Josephus relates that Alexander
3436
At 2.568 Josephus has just implied that there were Janneus had destroyed an earlier settlement here (1.105;
two Galilees (cf. 1.22) and all of this builds expectation Ant. 13.393). The identification of the site remains uncer-
for the full description of the region near the beginning tain (Appendix A to BJP 9), although Seluqiyeh, which
of the next book (3.35-44). preserves the name—some 18 km (11 miles) NE of the
3437
Life 188: Acharabe. The site in question appears Jordan River’s entry point to the Kinneret Lake, 16 km
to comprise the cliffs facing the Arab village of Akhbara from Bethsaida—is the leading candidate.
in Upper Galilee (see Appendix A to BJP 9). 3443
The site is not yet certainly identified. In spite of
3438
The closest match to this name, which does not Josephus’ location of it in Upper Gaulanitis (4.2), many
appear in the Life parallel, seems to be Safad (Tzefat,
scholars prefer the village of Yehudiyye in Lower Golan;
Tsefat), later famous for Kabbalah among other things,
archaeologists have found there remains of a 2-m (6-ft)
about 7.75 miles (12.5 km) into the hills NW of Lake
wide wall of uncertain date. Siyar es-Sujan in Upper
Kinneret. See Appendix A in BJP 9. No fortifications
Golan is another possibility (see Appendix A to BJP 9).
have been found from this period, but the city was heav-
But see the note to “Gaulanitis” in this section on the
ily built over in the Middle Ages.
3439 rebel status of Sogane.
Iamnia according to Life 188, the site has been 3444
This is the only site outside of Galilee (in the
probably identified as Khirbet Iamnit, N of Safad (Tze-
fat); see Appendix A to BJP 9. Golan) given to Josephus according to 2.568; see the
3440
This site (Meroth at 3.40, where it problematically notes there. In the Life parallel (§ 185-86), after seri-
marks the W extremity of Upper Galilee; Ameroth at ous factional blood-letting the people of Gamala defect
Life 188, except MS R, which also has Meroth) is now from King Agrippa II and appeal to Josephus for a gar-
identified as the former Arab village of Maruss in Upper rison, and for help in raising their walls. He sends both.
Galilee, 1.5 km S of Qasion ([Qazyon]; see Appendix Gamala is often considered one of two showcases (the
A to BJP 9). Earlier scholarship had identified Meroth other is Iotapata) for Josephus’ accuracy, since archaeol-
with Meiron, 5 km W of Safad (Tzefat) above the Wadi ogy has turned up a hastily reinforced and thoroughly
Meiron (Meyers, Meyers, and Strange 1974: 4); though breached defensive wall from the time of the war, with
that site is significantly further W, it would still be hard hundreds of arrowheads and ballista balls in the area
to square with Josephus’ location at 3.40. (cf. Syon 2002).
3445
3441
I.e., the Golan Heights, occupying the NE quad- Located in W-central Lower Galilee, in the gentle
rant of a circle centered in Lake Kinneret (Gennesar). hills S of the Beit-Netofa valley, Sepphoris was the chief
The parallel passage concerning fortified sites (Life 187) city of the region at this time; see the note at 2.56.
3446
reports the defection of the Golan from King Agrippa II, The same collocation “allowed . . . of their own
whose territory the region had been (2.243; Ant. 20.138). accord” occurs at 2.134 (of the Essenes).
3447
But that summary comes much later in the story of Jose- Or “rebuild.” For variety, it seems, Josephus uses
phus’ command, after the activities of Philip b. Iacimus a very rare word for building up (or again): ἀναδέµω.
in Gamala, the first Tiberian revolt, and various intrigues Since it is hardly used by other authors (Memnon, Frag.
from John of Gischala. That parallel highlights the arti- 25 [Müller]), though Philo has it twice (Agr. 113, 157)
ficiality of the summary here. Note further that Jose- and Josephus has used it 3 times in War 1 (1.201, 265,
phus’ just-announced commission (2.568) included only 425—not elsewhere), we can see again (a) the lexical
Gamala, of the Gaulanite towns. He includes Seleuceia unity of his work and (b) his “Philonic” language.
book two 389

seeing that they were both well fixed for resources and eager for war3449—without an
order.3450 575 Similarly3451 with Gischala:3452 Ioannes [son] of Leius3453 walled it of his
own accord, after Yosep had so directed;3454 for all the other defenses3455 he was on hand,

3448 3450
This is a puzzling claim. In his digression against I.e., they did not need to receive an order to pro-
Justus (Life 346-47) Josephus will claim that the Sep- ceed with war preparations. But see the previous note.
3451
phorites fooled him into building a wall for them as I.e., both are being walled by the people them-
they awaited a garrison from the Roman legate (see the selves, though at Josephus’ alleged direction. The criti-
next note). This is, however, suspiciously like the com- cal reader might rather conclude that they are similar in
plaint he makes about Tiberias (Life 155-56): they too having nothing to do with Josephus, though he claims
tricked him into building a wall, as they waited for a credit for them.
3452
troop from King Agrippa to secure them against Jose- Gush Halav (mod. El-Jish) was the largest Judean
phus and the Galileans. It is difficult to reconcile that center of Upper Galilee in Josephus’ day. It was the
story in Life (concerning Sepphoris) with the account home of Josephus’ determined rival, John (next note).
here. Most likely, Josephus is simply, in his “brilliant It has not yet been excavated (see Appendix A to BJP
general” voice, taking credit for something that had little 9 for surface finds). For its eventual fall to Titus, see
or nothing to do with him (cf. the case of Gischala in 4.92-130.
3453
the next sentence), viz.: the independent strengthening of For the name Ioannes, see the note at 2.287 (a
the city walls by the Sepphorites for protection against different character). This reading of the father’s name
their fellow Judeans. (Λήιος [in MSS PA and the preferred reading, though
3449
This claim poses a notorious problem. At 2.511 we find attempted corrections in other MSS and their
Sepphoris has already capitulated to Cestius Gallus’ gen- margins], perhaps related to λήιον [field] or λεία [plun-
eral Gallus on his first approach (cf. Life 30, 38, 104), der]) changes in the Life parallels (§§ 43, 122, 189)
just as it had capitulated quickly to the young Herod, to Ληουείς, which suggests the name of the patriarch
who used it as his base for pacifying Galilee (1.304). Levi (Λεύις) and the tribe of Levites (Ληουίται). Since
Although it had provided a base in 4 BCE for Judas Josephus has recently disparaged the Levites there (Ant.
the son of Ezekias (2.56), Varus’ ruthless punishment 20.216-18), he may be wishing to associate John with
seems to have removed any such further activity (2.68). them; alternatively, John was in fact known as the son
The evidence from the 60s CE seems clear: the locally of Levi, or a Levite, and Josephus wishes to give a dif-
minted coins (in 68 CE honoring Vespasian and declar- ferent impression here. At any rate, this is a typically
ing itself “Neronias,” a “city of peace”; Meshorer 1982: casual first mention of someone who will become central
2.167-69) and other archaeological indicators (especially to the main narrative. John’s prominence begins a few
the intentionally filled-in fort complex; Meyers 2002) sentences below, with Josephus’ unprecedented character
confirm the general portrait in Josephus that Sepphoris assault at 2.585-94. See the notes there.
3454
opted early and decisively for loyalty to Rome. Life 30 This claim is repeated at 2.590 below, where Jose-
claims that Sepphoris was under attack from the non-ur- phus continues to portray John as under his control. But
ban population (“the Galileans”) precisely because of its the parallels at Life 43-45, 70-72, 189 seem impossible
firm pledge of loyalty to Rome, and the city’s determined to reconcile. There John first appears as flatly opposed to
support for Rome proved a constant problem for Jose- any notion of revolt. When Gischala is overrun by people
phus as commander of Galilee—as also for his rivals; from Gadara, Aganea, and Tyre (or Kedasa), then sacked
cf. Life 39, 104-11 (the Sepphorites hire mercenaries to and burned, John arms his fellow-citizens, rebuilds the
keep Josephus out), 124, 232, 346, 373-80, 394 (they city, and fortifi es its walls for future protection. That
request and eventually receive a garrison from Cestius description is presented as part of what Josephus first
Gallus), 411. learned as he gathered intelligence upon his arrival in the
This alleged eagerness for war might be understood region, apparently while based at Sepphoris (Life 30-31,
in various ways, e.g.: (a) as a pragmatic claim by the 61-64); it had nothing to do with any orders from him.
city—reflecting a specific historical moment—to keep When John reportedly asks Josephus for permission to
Josephus away while the Sepphorites continued to plead use the imperial grain supplies scored in Galilee for this
for a Roman garrison; (b) as Josephus’ ad hoc literary purpose, Josephus claims that he refused permission,
invention here, though inconsistent with his larger narra- though John was allowed to proceed by Josephus’ two
tive, to explain why he was not involved in fortifying this bribed colleagues. Accordingly, when Josephus comes
major city (alone); or (c) as some sort of irony, though to list his fortifications in Life 187-88, though he has
that seems highly unlikely. a motive to inflate his achievements, he cannot include
390 book two

laboring alongside3456 and also issuing orders.3457

Josephus 576 He also enlisted a force of more than 100,000 young men3458 out of Galilee, all
recruits and of whom he armed, while training them,3459 with the old weapons that had been collect-
trains army
ed.3460
(20.7) 577 After that, since he realized that the unbeatable3461 strength of the Romans
had come about in particular through prompt obedience3462 and exercise with weapons,3463

Gischala. Immediately after that list of Josephus’ forti- I take the accusative relative pronoun “whom” to serve
fications, in fact, comes his indignant claim that John both the finite verb and the participle.
3460
independently fortified Gischala as a function of his Since Josephus has not mentioned a collection of
hatred for Josephus (Life 189; cf. 71-72). Part of John’s old weapons in War , his precise meaning is unclear. Life
fortification wall may have been found in the surface 28-29 claims, to be sure, that his original mission had
finds at Gischala (see Appendix A to BJP 9). been to disarm a Galilean populace whose bandits and
3455
These might include digging ditches and tunnels revolutionaries were well equipped with weapons, but he
(cf. 4.9), and providing protected shooting points, as well and his colleagues soon realize that disarmament is out
as stockpiling stores. of the question and opt instead to buy off the militants
3456
The compound verb συµπονέω occurs only here (§§ 77-78). Perhaps he is not referring to any specific
in Josephus. weapons, but simply indicating that a collection of old
3457
Josephus’ personal participation in fortifying Gis- weapons was made for this purpose.
3461
chala, where he seems by his own admission never to This Attic adjective (ἀήττητος), with only about
have been tolerated, let alone welcome (see the previ- two dozen attestations before Philo, occurs only here in
ous notes in this section, also Life 101-3, 122-23, 189), Josephus. Philo has it 26 times, after which it remains
stretches the imagination; it might just have been pos- common (e.g., Plutarch has some 63 occurrences). As
sible in the episodes covered by Life 70-78 (during Jose- with other adjectives of this form, one is unsure whether
phus’ earliest visit to the site, where he “dismissed” his the author intends a simple description of the past (they
two colleagues), but even that is unlikely in view of Life are unbeaten) or also potential (they are unbeatable), and
71, 189. both may be in view (cf. 3.106-7).
3458 3462
Cf. 2.583 (where 60,000+ are said to be well The 6 occurrences of εὐπείθεια in Josephus and
trained). Both figures are virtually impossible. They would the cognate adjective (below in this sentence), all in
account for most of the “young men” in all of Judea at War (also 3.15, 479; 5.122, 127), have to do with this
the time (given a population of perhaps 1,000,000 and distinctive Roman trait. The word is not much attested
allowing for women, children, and senior men), and the before Josephus; his contemporary Plutarch uses it con-
larger one would represent an army equivalent to about spicuously of the Spartans (Lyc. 4.2; 7.3; 16.5; 30.4;
20 legions—nearly the empire-wide Roman deploy- Comp. Lyc. Num. 3.6; Ages. 2.1; cf. Mor. [Praec. 817a];
ment. Since this number is also significantly larger than Xenophon, Lac. 2.14). On the Roman legionaries’ puta-
the Canadian Armed Forces (with some 20,000 active tive ready obedience (with other vocabulary), see further
duty soldiers, 70,000 personnel in all), contemplating 3.88, 92, 102-6 and the following note.
3463
Josephus’ training regime for so many recruits boggles This precise phrase reappears in Josephus’ com-
the mind—and indeed seems to cause him despair at ing description of military training (3.70-109; cf. 3.102).
2.577. The Life uses a more life-like scale. Josephus There too (3.105-7) he will claim that the perfect dis-
notes there (§§ 212-13) that he had gradually (cf. §§ 90, cipline of the Roman army accounts for the success of
118) acquired a force of about 3,000, roughly the same their empire. That parallel raises questions, however,
number as his rival John of Gischala (§§ 95, 233, 371; about Josephus’ sincerity and the possibility of irony.
see below on Ioannes), to which Josephus then added The uncontrollability of legionary soldiers when they
some 5,000 conscripts as a condition of his remaining moved in to sack a conquered city was no secret (cf.
in Galilee—presumably, to control the largest force in Ziolkowski 1993). More specifically, at 3.98-100, 106-7
the region. Josephus will claim a level of legionary discipline and
3459
Although Josephus uses the compound verb a history of never having been beaten (even by bad for-
κατασκευάζω some 221 times, the rare double com- tune), that do not accord with either the past (cf. the first
pound ἐγκατασκευάζω occurs only here, as a middle two volumes of Polybius and the notorious losses under
participle. Both the significance of the prefix (“preparing Crassus in 53 BCE at Carrhae, as of Varus in 9 CE at
in”) and the object of the participle (preparing or train- Kalkriese in the Teutoburg Forest) or the story that he is
ing: the weapons, the soldiers, himself?) are unclear. about to tell of legionaries’ behavior during the Judean
book two 391

on the one hand he abandoned the instruction, followed by practice;3464 on the other
hand, seeing that the [Romans’] promptness to obey3465 arose from the number of their
commanders,3466 he divided his army in a more Roman way3467 and appointed more
officers.3468 578 He created distinctions among the soldiers and subordinated them to
decurions,3469 centurions,3470 and then tribunes,3471 and above these, commanders in charge
of bulkier3472 divisions.3473 579 He taught signals transmission3474 and both the advances
and the retreats3475 on the trumpet,3476 as well as the assaults and wheeling movements3477
of the wings,3478 and how it is necessary on the one hand to turn back from the part that

war (e.g., 5.115-21; 6.12, 29-32, 78-9, 89, 152-56, 190). his Solomon at Ant. 7.368. Even if these models were
It seems that he deliberately exaggerates the legions’ in Josephus’ mind, they would no doubt have been too
effectiveness partly in order to enhance the image of complicated for him to explain here.
3469
his own Judean compatriots, who had such considerable Lit. “leaders of 10,” which seems to be the mean-
success against them, partly in order to undermine the ing here, though there was considerable flexibility in the
legions’ invincible image. actual functions of rank (see the note to “cavalrymen”
3464
The Greek is not entirely clear, and translators at 2.298).
3470
offer various paraphrastic clarifications. In context the Josephus seems to mean the term literally (“leader
sense appears to be that Josephus, now allegedly with of 100”), though the rank had greater flexibility, and in
100,000 young recruits, gave up as futile his personal Rome normally indicated one in charge of 80; see the
efforts to train them all (for that required both his instruc- note at 2.380. MSS PAML and the Latin omit “centuri-
tion and his personal supervision of their practice) and ons”; notwithstanding the weight of these MSS and the
took a leaf from the Romans—leaving the training to his principle of favoring the more difficult reading (since
officers. This was no doubt wise! the fuller list so clearly accommodates this projection
3465
This is the cognate adjective of the noun rendered to 3.87-88), all modern editions include the centurions
“prompt obedience” in this section. here.
3466 3471
At 3.87-88 Josephus will outline the Roman com- Again, Josephus appears to mean the term lit-
mand structure: the soldiery look to the centurions, who erally (“leader of 1,000”), though in practical applica-
turn to the tribunes, who look to the most senior officers, tion the rank had considerable flexibility (see notes to
and all await the signal from the supreme commander “tribune(s)” at 2.11, 244, 335).
3472
(legate). Josephus chooses a fairly rare adjective (ἁδρός:
3467
This comparative adjective (ῥωµαϊκώτερος), thick, stout, bulky), which he uses—both times in the
which appears only here in Josephus, is unattested in comparative—here and at 4.401.
3473
literature before his time and appears with extreme rar- Josephus’ terminology is vague. In military con-
ity in late antiquity. The simple adjective is much more texts he normally uses τάγµα, the noun here, for a
common. legion, whereas here it is simply a “bulkier division”
3468
Greek ταξίαρχοι has no fixed meaning in Jose- (than 1,000-strong). Most problematically, his mimick-
phus (see note to “heads for each detail” at Life 242 in ing of the Roman military structure does not account
BJP 9), or at least its meaning depends upon the sense for its practical complications, especially the cohort (of
of τάξις, which is extremely flexible: see the note to 480 or 800; cf. a modern battalion, or division in Brit-
“subversive” at 2.224. In War it seems to mean most ish Commonwealth armies) as the effective tactical unit;
often “senior officers” (1.369, 461, 491, 673; 3.83, 87; Josephus has no commanders of 500, etc. Perhaps his
5.121). vagueness reflects the fanciful nature of his numbers.
3474
Josephus’ solution to the problem of managing large Possibly “transmission of watchwords” (σηµείων
numbers of people recalls that adopted by Moses on the παραδόσεις): cf. 3.88; Ant. 19.187.
3475
advice of his father-in-law Jethro: to lighten his admin- Cf. the orderly Roman retreats described at
istrative burden by appointing subordinate officials over 3.88.
3476
thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens (Exod 18:13-22). For the Roman use of the trumpet in battle, see
The parallel is especially significant because in Jose- esp. 4.20; 6.69; also 3.86, 89-91.
3477
phus’ own reworking of that story he transforms Moses’ Cf. the brisk Roman wheeling motions at 3.105.
3478
move into a military reorganization, with the officers’ Although κέρας means essentially “horn” and,
ranks expanded to match Roman positions (Ant. 3.71-72; especially in the Judean context it might indicate sig-
cf. BJP 3 and comments by Feldman ad loc.). Cf. also nals for wheeling given by a musical horn, Josephus
392 book two

is making headway towards the one that is becoming weary,3479 and on the other hand to
share the sufferings3480 of the part that is laboring.
5803481 Whatever conduces to constancy of the soul3482 or endurance of the body3483 he
would expound.* But he was especially disciplining3484 them for war, dilating at every
[opportunity] on the orderliness of the Romans,3485 and how they would be fighting against
men who through their strength of body3486 and determination of soul3487 dominate very
nearly3488 the entire world.3489 581 He declared that even before battle3490 he would make
a test of their obedience to command during the war, [according to] whether they would
abstain from the familiar crimes:3491 from theft as well as banditry3492 and plunder, from
cheating the compatriot element,3493 and from regarding as private gain3494 the harm of
one’s closest friends.3495 582 For those wars are conducted most honorably in which all3496
who do the fighting have a good conscience,3497 whereas those who are sordid “inside the

consistently uses it in War—also precisely in contexts suited to the high plane of the discourse here.
3488
of wheeling movements—of cavalry wings (1.191-92, See the note to this phrase at 2.373: the language
306; 3.300). recalls Agrippa’s speech.
3479 3489
Especially because of its repetition of τὸ κάµνον, See the note at 2.360, also in Agrippa’s speech.
3490
which occurs only there and here, this passage recalls See the note at 2.464.
3491
Cestius’ use of the cavalry in precisely such a manner These crimes of armed soldiers against vulnerable
at 2.519. populations were well known; cf. the appeal of John the
3480
This is the only occurrence of συµπαθέω in War Baptist at Luke 3:14. Josephus will re-use the adjec-
(cf. Ant. 6.341; 16.404). tive “familiar” (συνήθης) in this sentence: see “closest
3481
This description of Josephus’ military prepara- friends.”
3492
tions is replete with language that he has used of the For the distinction between these two, see the note
philosophical schools, especially the Essenes (1.119-66); to the latter at 2.142: these rules for Josephus’ soldiers
this parallel highlights the close relationship between are conspicuously close to the Essenes’ 12 oaths.
3493
martial (and Spartan) and moral-philosophical values in Beyond the common moral principle that one
ancient thought. See the following notes and those to the should not cheat the fellow-citizenry (τὸ ὁµόφυλον),
Essene passage above (2.119-61). this comment taps a deeper vein in War : the more radi-
3482
Greek παράστασιν ψυχῆς, equivalent to ψυχῆς cal rebels constantly victimized and abused their fellows,
παράστηµα later in this sentence, is characteristic lan- while the Romans were comparatively generous toward
guage in War, anticipated mainly by Diodorus; see the them (cf. 1.10, 27). This is not necessarily praise of the
note at 2.476. Notice the chiasm in this section (2.580): Romans: the contrast draws its force from the widely
soul, body; body, soul. shared dismay at Roman abuses.
3483 3494
Greek καρτερία was also the goal of Essene train- The phrase κέρδος οἰκεῖον, though occasionally
ing and a hallmark of the Judean character in general; attested before Josephus (Theognis, El. 1.46; Diony-
see the note at 2.138. Various MSS include συνεχῶς sius, Ant. rom. 2.63.3; 3.6.4; Memnon, Frag. 59 [Mül-
(“constantly”) somewhere in this sentence. ler]), appears much more characteristically in his works
3484
Or “training, drilling.” The only other occurrences (1.202; Ant. 15.288; 17.270; 18.8, 294).
3495
of the verb ἀσκέω (cognate to ἄσκησις; cf. “asceti- Probably to but possibly by one’s most intimate
cism”) in War 2 sit as bookends to the description of friends. As he often does, Josephus re-uses a word in a
the philosophical schools, at 2.119, 166 (there transitive: new way: here the adjective from “usual [or familiar,
“cultivate”); cf. the cognate noun at 2.150. customary] crimes” earlier in this sentence (συνήθης)
3485
See the note at 2.529: Roman orderliness is a now as an absolute superlative, clearly indicating per-
prominent theme of the work, though Josephus empha- sons.
3496
sizes (e.g., 2.151) that the Judean Essenes also master MSS VRC and Latin omit “all” and MSS AM
this trait. place it differently, which might mean that it was added
3486
See the note to this characteristic phrase at 2.268. at some point; it does not seem necessary to the general
Note also 2.476, where the characteristic next phrase is sense.
3497
paired with it (confirming Josephus’ authorial control). Here we have another entrée into Josephus’ dis-
3487
See the earlier note to “soul” in this sentence. tinctive language. For the word “conscience” he prefers
Josephus has created a chiasm (soul, body; body, soul), the articular neuter perfect participle of σύνοιδα (τὸ
book two 393

house” have to deal not only with the adversaries confronting them but also with God as
an enemy.3498
(20.8) 583 In many ways such as these he persisted in encouraging them. Now the
[force] that was ready for battle, having been welded together 3499 by him, comprised
60,000 infantry,3500 350 cavalry,3501 and apart from these about 4,500 mercenaries,3502
in whom he had particular confidence. He also had around him 600 élite guards of his
person.3503 584 The cities began readily maintaining3504 the rest of the army, except for
the mercenaries:3505 each one, while sending out for the army the half-groups3506 of those
being enlisted, kept back the rest for procuring3507 the daily necessities for them.3508
Thus they separated out some for weapons and others for work, with those sending
the grain3509 being furnished in exchange with3510 security from the armed troops.3511

συνειδὸς; 1.452, 496; 3.500; Ant. 2.25, 52; 3.13, 319; lages (even allowing for the fantastic numbers otherwise
4.286; 13.316; 16.100-102; Apion 2.218) to the noun (ἡ here).
συνείδησις; 4.189, 193; Ant. 16.103, 212). This usage 3502
These soldiers for hire are a curious presence,
is rarely attested before his time; indeed it seems to be and may be a private joke. According to Life, all the
found clearly only in Demosthenes (Cor. 110) and Philo bandits and rebels of Galilee essentially became merce-
(Post. 59; Deus 128; Conf. 121; Fug. 159; Ios. 47, 68), naries when Josephus realized that he could not disarm
though some of his contemporaries show the same turn: them; he exacted local funds to pay them off, so that
Plutarch, Mor. [Num. vind.] 554f, 556a; Epictetus in they would stay away from the population centers but
Arrian, Diatr. 3.22.94 [“Instead of weapons and thugs, remain at his disposal (77-78). Mercenaries were widely
the conscience of the Cynic confers authority”]; Appian, regarded as the most reliable troops while being paid
Bell. civ. 2.11.72. (since they were loyal to their paymaster), though Poly-
3498
This is a remarkable philosophical interlude, on bius is very critical of reliance upon them in adversity
several levels: τοὺς δὲ οἴκοθεν φαύλους οὐ µόνον τοῖς (e.g., 1.70.3-7; 11.13.1-7; 34.14.4).
ἐπιοῦσιν ἐχθροῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ θεῷ χρῆσθαι πολεµίῳ. It 3503
At Life 90, 92 Josephus has a bodyguard of 200.
appears that Josephus has been reading Philo, whose lan- 3504
Or “feeding.”
guage is conspicuously and uniquely close (QE frag. 32 3505
The mercenaries obviously have a secure line of
[Petit]): “The one who cohabits with evil carries destruc- support already, and their complement is filled by con-
tion within, for he has a housemate that is an enemy plot-
tract. The rest of the army depends for both recruits and
ting against him. For the conscience of the sordid person is
sustenance on the good will of the populace.
a sufficient retribution, presenting the soul with timidity— 3506
There is a rough parallel with Polybius’ idealistic
from within the house, [but] as if from a blow” (Ἐντὸς
description (10.16.1-4) of the Roman legions’ taking a
φέρει τὸν ὄλεθρον ὁ τῇ κακίᾳ συζῶν, ἐπεὶ σύνοικον
town, according to which no more than half engage in
ἔχει τὸν ἐπίβουλον καὶ πολέµιον. Ἱκανὴ γὰρ πρὸς
the violence, the other half remaining—but for protec-
τιµωρίαν ἡ τοῦ φαύλου συνείδησις, οἴκοθεν ὡς ἐκ
πληγῆς δειλίαν προτείνουσα τῇ ψυχῇ). Philo’s extended tion, not foraging.
3507
metaphor would better explain Josephus’ “house” lan- Greek συµπορισµός occurs only here in Josephus.
guage, though it is not difficult to understand on its own. It is attested before his time, remarkably, only in Diony-
Josephus has an ongoing interest in such reflections on sius (Ant. rom. 13.9.2), and after his time only in a 12th-
the timidity and risk produced by bad consciences, giv- century author. The simple form (without prefix) is much
ing them also to his namesake Joseph (Ant. 2.25, 52) and more common elsewhere; it will appear at 2.603.
3508
to Moses (Ant. 3.13, 319; 4.286). Josephus’ villagers appear extremely wise con-
3499
Or “whipped into shape, banged together” cerning military matters. Although the specific organiza-
(συγκροτέω), used conspicuously of John of Gischala tional measures used by the early Roman imperial army
at 2.588, the only two occurrences in bk. 2 (of 17 in is still a matter of much discussion (see Roth 1991: e.g.,
Josephus, mostly in military contexts); see note there. 280-94), it is clear that Roman generals—notably Julius
3500
We are presumably to infer that about a third of Caesar—gave constant thought to their logistical needs
the original recruit intake (2.576) did not pass muster. and especially grain supply. See the note to “legions”
3501
MSS VRC Latin have 250, with the words in at 2.63.
3509
reverse order. The number seems very small against I.e., those sending it out to the combat troops.
the size of the infantry, though it would not be easy to On the crucial importance of a grain supply in military
raise a large force of capable cavalry from Galilean vil- planning, see the note to “legions” at 2.63.
394 book two

Opposition (21.1) 5853512 As Yosep was thus administering the affairs of Galilee, there stood up
from John of against him*3513 a certain schemer3514 of a man from Gischala,3515 a son of Leius,3516 Ioannes
Gischala. Life
70 by name:3517 the slipperiest3518 and craftiest3519 of all those distinguishing themselves in
wretched behaviors3520 during these times; nevertheless, being poor3521 at the beginning,

3510
Greek ἀντιχορηγέω occurs only here in Josephus displayed in the triumph and is now held in some sort of
and is barely attested—in Greek orators—before him perpetual custody (War 6.433-34; 7.118): Tacitus men-
(Demosthenes, Mid. 59, 62; [Andocides], Alc. 20, 42). tions him (mistakenly giving him Simon’s patronymic)
Plutarch seems to quote the first Ps.-Andocides passage as one of the three, ultimately two, Judean rebel generals
(Alc. 16.5), but it is used by the 2nd-cent. CE Alexander (Hist. 5.12). In a work devoted largely to undermining
(Fig. 24). Roman preconceptions (see Introduction and 1.1-16),
3511
This is a characteristic chiasm: weapons, work Josephus might be expected to seize upon any oppor-
with grain; work with grain, weapons. tunity to blacken someone whom he and his audience
3512
Thackeray (LCL ad loc.) notes a striking parallel both freely despise.
between the following description and Sallust’s moral Life introduces John quite differently, however (§§
assessment of the senator L. Sergius Catilina (Bell. 43-44). Perhaps John has died in the meantime; at least,
Cat. 5), whose conspiracy (64-62 BCE) was famous in Josephus can there afford a more rounded portrait. In
Josephus’ Rome: Animus audax, subdolus, varius, cuius Life John appears at first as an opponent of rebellion, a
rei lubet simulator ac dissimulator. . . . Vastus animus moderate not unlike Josephus. Only gradually does he
inmoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat. . . . become radicalized, after an attack on his native Gischala
lubido maxuma invaserat rei publicae capiundae; neque by neighboring Greeks (§ 45). Josephus will portray him
id quibus modis adsequeretur, dum sibi regnum pararet, there as a close friend of a distinguished member of the
quicquam pensi habebat. Agitabatur magis magisque in Jerusalem council, Simon son of Gamaliel (§§ 189-92).
dies animus ferox inopia rei familiaris. “His mind was The common scholarly view, that Josephus was forced
bold, subtle, and flexible, capable of pretending or dis- to concede John’s good connections in Life by the rival
sembling whatever he wished. . . . His insatiable ambi- account by the latter’s friend Justus of Tiberias (§§ 87-8)
tion was always pursuing objects that were extravagant, may have some validity. But virtually every parallel story
romantic, and unattainable. . . He was overcome by an in War and Life is told differently in the later work, and
extreme desire to seize the commonwealth, and he did many of the differences cannot be traced to Justus’ chal-
not care, as long as he secured power for himself, about lenge. See further “swath” at 2.587 below, with note.
3518
the means by which he might achieve it. His violent Or “shiftiest.” All 15 occurrences of the adjec-
spirit was spurred on each day by the dwindling of his tive πανοῦργος (“ready for—i.e., willing to stoop to—
family’s wealth.” anything”) in Josephus come in War 1-6, 8 in bk. 1; only
3513
Greek παρανίστηµι occurs only here in Josephus; John receives the superlative (as also at 2.591).
3519
it seems elsewhere unattested in Greek literature. Superlative of δόλιος, which Josephus will make
3514
This is the first occurrence of ἐπίβουλος in War John’s chief character trait at 4.208 (though he has it only
2. With narrative emphasis, its 3 remaining occurrences 5 times in the corpus). He has also used the collocation
in the brief remaining space (2.615, 620, 622) will all “slippery and crafty” at 2.278, of Gessius Florus. Before
concern John. He is the schemer. his time it is attested only in a vice list from Aristotle,
3515
See the note at 2.575. preserved by Origen (Jer. hom. 17.1).
3516 3520
See the note at 2.575. Since the audience could Plural of πονήρευµα, a noun that appears only
not know this father, Josephus’ sentence structure seems here in Josephus and is rarely attested before him (Dem-
calculated mainly to enhance the grand narrative entrance osthenes, Aristog. 60; Fals. leg. 357; Dionysius, Ant.
(next note). rom. 6.84.4), though it turns up increasingly among 2nd-
3517
Especially considering that Josephus has already century authors (3 times in Aristides alone). It seems to
mentioned John (2.575; see notes there), this is a con- be a newly popular form.
3521
spicuously grand entrance, leading to the relentless and The root sense of πένης is that one must labor
savage assault on his character in the following sen- for one’s daily living: John, although later infamous, is
tences. This assault may represent Josephus’ attempt presented as not belonging to Josephus’ élite-statesman
to strengthen the bond with his Roman audience. They echelon, someone who could attend to political and intel-
likely know who John is already, given that he has been lectual life on the basis of landed or invested wealth. His
book two 395

for a long while he faced a lack of means as an impediment to his evil.3522 586 Though
ready to lie, he was formidable at conveying trustworthiness for the things he had lied
about, regarding as a virtue his trickery3523—and the use of this against those dearest to
him;3524 a pretender3525 to kindness,3526 and extremely bloodthirsty3527 when there was hope
of gain;3528 587 though having always yearned for great things, nourishing these hopes
by his pathetic wrongdoings.3529 He was a solitary3530 bandit, but later he found a crew of
brazenness3531—though small at first, cutting an ever-larger swath.3532
588 It was a concern with him not to take on anyone who was easy to capture, but

alleged financial and moral embarrassment are of one and moral sense of the term, which would lead to its
piece. See, however, 2.590 (“a lack of resources was great popularity in late antiquity, whence English “hypo-
holding him back”) and notes. crite,” and which we find in some texts contemporary
3522
Although the correlation between poverty and with Josephus: Plutarch (first reference above); Matt 7:5;
moral defect is not dwelt upon by Josephus, he stresses 23:13, 15, 23; Luke 6:42.
3526
the complementary dynamism: that virtue is rewarded Although Josephus often speaks of kindness in
with prosperity and happiness (Ant. 1.14, 20, 113; 2.7, general (28 times in the corpus), there is not much
198; 4.114, 164; 11.90; 18.339). Notwithstanding philo- φιλανθρωπία in War : only the pretense to it here and a
sophical challenges advocating the simple life (i.e., a Roman claim to it at 6.333.
3527
voluntary simplicity), it was axiomatic in Greco-Roman It is a sign of Josephus’ rhetorical flexibility that,
and Near Eastern society that the great were also the although he gives John the superlative φονικώτατος here
good (in Rome, the honestiores): cf. Aristophanes, Plut. (used of the emperor Gaius at Ant. 19.201), at 4.564 he
29 and Job 1:1-2:10 for the problem of exceptions to will claim that Simon is comparatively more bloodthirsty
the rule. It is not only that bad behavior is punished by than John (cf. 6.229).
3528
poverty, but also that those in dire poverty seem much Although similar phrases appear once or twice in
more likely to enagage in crime to secure life’s neces- several earlier authors, Josephus’ 10 uses mark δι᾿ ἐλπίδα
sities (e.g., Xenophon, Hier. 4.10), and simply: poverty κέρδους as his distinctive language (1.202; 2.346; 6.383;
must be connected with bad character. Ant. 14.157; 17.269, 282; 18.7, 176; Life 325).
3523 3529
Or “deception” (ἀπάτη); see note to “trickery” It seems that Josephus offers 2.590-92 below as
at 2.106. examples of this nefarious activity.
3524 3530
This elaboration may be invited by Josephus’ rec- The single use of the adjective µονότροπος in Jose-
ognition that he himself constantly indulges in deception, phus (at 5.441; 7.324 adverbially) and its rarity before his
even relishing it (as at 2.610-11; but cf. 2.615, where time invite consideration of intended nuances. Adverbi-
John is the trickster). Deception of the populace was part ally and etymologically it means “in only one way,” and
of the statesman’s art at times (Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.] this corresponds to the sense of its opposite πολύτροπος
813f, 848b: statesmen as “actors”; cf. “pretender” in the (“in many ways, many-sidedly”), which occurs 9 times
next clause), and tricking one’s enemies during war was a in Josephus. The context here, however, suggests at least
constant need for the general (e.g., Frontinus, Stratagems, aloneness—given the contrast with the many who joined
passim). Deception of one’s closest friends, associates, Josephus—and this might also imply friendlessness (as
and peers, however, was apparently beyond the pale. at Plutarch, Mor. [San.] 135b; [Frat.] 479c; cf. Euripides,
3525
Greek ὑποκριτὴς φιλανθρωπίας; cf. Plutarch, Andr. 281 on the young loner Paris).
3531
Mor. [Lib. educ. 13b]: ὑποκριταὶ φιλίας. This is the See the note at 2.108.
3532
only occurrence of ὑποκριτής in Josephus, though he Namely, when the troublemaker John is later
uses the cognate noun ὑπόκρισις 8 times (War 1.628, besieged by the Romans in his native town he flees by
630; Ant. 1.211; 2.160; 13.220; 14.286; 15.204; 16.216) night to Jerusalem (4.92-120). There he gathers a group
and the verb ὑποκρίνοµαι 25 times. From debated ori- of youthful followers and launches a bid for power against
gins (e.g., Page 1956), this noun came to mean “actor” the other rebel leaders (as he had against Josephus in
or “orator” in the classical and Hellenistic periods (e.g., Galilee; see the following paragraphs). After allegedly
Plato, Ion 532d, 536a; Resp. 373b, 395a; Demosthenes, betraying Ananus to the Idumeans, who then murder
Cor. 262; still Plutarch, Mor. [Glor. Ath.] 345e, 348e; the distinguished chief priest (4.314-25), John becomes
[Quaest. conv.] 623b; Lys. 23.4). In Josephus’ use of this one of the two leaders of the revolt, before being forced
word and its cognates (not directly concerned with the to surrender (6.433-34) and become an exhibit in the
stage), we see the beginnings of the same metaphorical Roman triumph (cf. also 7.263-64).
396 book two

he selected those who excelled in condition of body,3533 determination of soul,3534 and

expertise3535 in wars: he welded together3536 a band of as many as 400 men, who were
mostly refugees from the region of Tyre and the villages therein.3537 589 Through them he
began plundering all Galilee and mauling3538 the masses,3539 who were in suspense over
the coming war.
(21.2) 590 Although he [Ioannes] was already keen to be a general3540 and setting him-
self upon greater things, a lack of resources3541 was holding him back.3542 But when he
observed that Yosep was greatly enjoying his activity,3543 he persuaded* him first to entrust
him with building up3544 the wall of his home town—in which [project] he fully took ad-

3533 3538
Precisely the same phrase was used of Pseudalex- See the note to this verb (“mauling it”) at 2.90;
ander at 2.110; see the note there. in War 2 only Josephus tends to use it metaphorically of
3534
John thus has the same criteria for selection, with tyrants (also 2.652).
3539
the same language, as both Josephus and the Romans in Or “the many” (οἱ πολλοί), reflecting Josephus’
recruiting legionaries (2.580; see notes there). aristocratic posture.
3540
3535
Or “experience” (ἐµπειρία). Possibly “keen to make war,” though the sense
3536
Or “banged, whipped together.” Josephus’ con- given in the translation seems more likely in context.
spicuous use of the same verb as for his own activity This is the only occurrence in Josephus of the fairly
(2.583; see note there), along with similar phrases about rare desiderative verb σρτατηγιάω (Xenophon, Anab.
the attributes of recruits (see previous note), strengthens 1.33; Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 295; Dionysius, Ep. Pomp.
the comparison between himself and John, in spite of 3.9; Strabo 4.6.7; 7.4.3; Philo, Abr. 221; Plutarch, Caes.
the chasm between them in character and size of forces. 62.4).
3541
He will portray John in what follows as a dangerous This expression (ἔνδεια χρηµάτων), though not
opponent. common in Josephus, occurs more frequently in his work
3537
This notice is surprising, but consistent. It is sur- (also 1.631; Ant. 12.294) than elsewhere; other writers
prising because Josephus nowhere explains who these use it no more than once (Xenophon, Ath. pol. 1.5; Plato,
Tyrian refugees or fugitives were. Further, Tyre and its Hipp. Maj. 283d; Antisthenes, Frag. 117; Demosthenes,
Olynth. 3.20).
villages (notably Tyrian Kadasa lying about 10 km. [6 3542
John’s poverty was alleged at 2.585; see the note
miles] NE of Gischala) were apparently hostile to Gis-
there. This is nearly the reverse of the portrait in Life
chala, and vice versa (War 2.429 with note; 4.105; Life
43-46, 189-91, according to which John was evidently
44). At 3.39-40 Josephus explains that a band of Tyrian
prosperous at the outset, a well-connected principal man
villages formed the northern edge of Upper Galilee; so
of Gischala, who only gradually came (note “suddenly”
John would have easy access to these people. It is con-
at § 70) to challenge Josephus for leadership. See the
sistent, however, that Josephus gives John a following of notes to “name” at 2.585 and “swath” at 2.587, also to
loyal Tyrian refugees, who remained with him even when BJP 9 (ad loc.).
all others fled. In the other passages there are more than 3543
With 23 occurrences of this adjective (here sub-
400: 2,000 at War 2.625 (assuming that “Syrian” should stantivized, τὸ δραστήριον), Josephus is among its
be understood as “Tyrian”) and 1,500 at Life 372 (from heavy users, a group that begins with Dionysius (22) and
the mother-city of Tyre itself, a difficult 35 km NW of includes Philo (10), Plutarch (29), and Galen (32). The
Gischala). rough parallel in Life (122), at a later point relative to
It is not clear how Josephus wishes these literary events, will elaborate that John was not happy when he
characters to be understood, much less what histori- saw everything going according to Josephus’ plan, and
cal reality they may have had. They do not seem to be that Josephus was showing good will to his supporters
Judeans because he labels them foreigners (ξένοι; Life but was a terror to his enemies.
372), though that later remark is not decisive; they might 3544
Possibly “rebuilding” [Gischala], if this is to be
be Judean sympathizers who felt vulnerable after the connected with the story described in Life 44-46, accord-
massacres of Judeans throughout Syria (2.461-65). Or ing to which John had to rebuild the city and its walls
they might simply be non-Judeans disaffected enough after a sack by neighboring Syrian-Greeks. But see the
with general conditions under Rome to join the Judean note to “directed” at 2.575 for the difficulty of recon-
revolt (cf. Life 112-13 for other non-Judeans who join ciling this account with that later version. Life 71-73
the fight), or mercenaries. It may be significant that Tyr- emphatically denies that John persuaded Josephus; it
ian coinage is well represented in the surface finds at alleges rather that he bribed Josephus’ colleagues (invis-
Gischala; see Appendix A to BJP 9. ible in War ) to secure their permission.
book two 397

vantage of the wealthy folks.3545 591 Then, having concocted a very slippery charade,3546 John’s olive oil
according to which all the Judeans of Syria3547 should avoid using olive oil3548 unless it scheme Life 74
had been dispensed by a compatriot,3549 he applied [for the right] to send it to them at
the frontier.3550 592 Buying up, with Tyrian coinage,3551 what four Attic [drachmas]3552
can [buy]—four amphoras3553—he would sell a half-amphora for the same price.3554 Since

3545
The only possible light we receive is from Life Whether he did, and whether he extracted an unseemly
71-73 (see comments in BJP 9), which alleges that John profit, we cannot presently know. See further the note
asked to confiscate the imperial granaries throughout to “oil” at 2.123.
3548
Galilee—no doubt established both for Roman military Olive oil was fundamental to ordinary life through-
logistics and in case of famine. Josephus refused because out the Mediterranean world. See the note at 2.123—on
he wished to reserve the grain either for the Romans or the Essene refusal to use cosmetic oil.
3549
for his own use, a plausible pair of options if he took the Although Josephus presents this as a con on John’s
same approach as he gives to Ananus, of hoping for a part, at Ant. 12.120 he states plainly that the Judeans of
resolution but being willing to fight honorably if neces- Antioch “did not want to use foreign olive oil.” Good-
sary (War 4.320). Life does not indicate that John took man (1990: 239-43) argues persuasively that this was a
advantage of the wealthy. To guess at Josephus’ thinking matter of instinct rather than actual purity law, which is
(opaque to his audience), one might combine the stories why the restriction was undone by the rabbis (m. ‘Avod.
by imagining that John sold Life’s grain to War’s rich zar. 2.6).
3550
people at an unscrupulous profit, in keeping with the Since John is based in one of the northern-most
next scheme. But Josephus evidently feels no need to Judean communities, Gischala, he is perhaps looking to
explain the matter here, content with the charge that the the border area with Syria just a few km to the N.
3551
poor John defrauded the wealthy. For Tyre, see the notes at 2.239, 459. This remark
3546
Or “bit of staging” (σκηνή; cf. 2.251); the lan- seems to be added for a bit of local color, since the
guage fits with “pretender” (i.e., actor) at 2.587. audience would well understand the values of Attic cur-
3547
This is quite different from the parallel (Life 74), rency about to be mentioned. Four drachmas (= a tet-
according to which the Judeans of Caesarea Philippi radrachma) were equivalent to one Tyrian shekel, which
alone, confined by a military order, appeal to John for seems to have been John’s currency; the half-shekel (=
help in providing pure olive oil (see BJP 9 with notes didrachma) was the tax paid annually by Judeans for
there). Here, instead, Josephus makes it John’s initiative the upkeep of the Jerusalem temple. Tyrian coins were
to supply all the Judeans of Syria, and he presents it of particularly high silver content and so were required
entirely as a ruse on John’s part, his language implying for temple use. Meshorer (2001: 73-78) argues that from
that there was no such need to buy from a compatriot; 19 BCE, following a revolt in 20 BCE, Tyre had lost its
perhaps, indeed, John is taking advantage of the vulner- privilege of minting silver coins (a privilege carefully
ability of the Syrian Judeans, who have faced mass mur- monitored by Rome), and the Tyrian shekel was minted
der at the hands of their gentile neighbors (2.461-80). by Herod in Jerusalem. Thus the silver coins of the revolt
For Josephus (cf. 2.458-60), “Syria” can include the period, with their new dating system (“Year 1” counting
province proper, headquartered in Antioch and including from 66 CE rather than 126 BCE), the proclamation
Damascus, as well as the Greek cities of the Decapo- “Jerusalem (rather than Tyre) the Holy,” and the change
lis, the coastal cities, and any other areas not properly of imagery, would represent an act of defiance in light
in Judea; at 2.266 the non-Judeans of Caesarea are of the rupture with the Greek cities and the local Roman
“Syrians.” Josephus has recently described the Judean authorities in 66 CE. This would explain inter alia why
populations of Syria in some detail (2.461-480), though the Tyrian coinage ceases in 66 CE, when the Jerusalem
giving the impression that many or most had been killed. revolt coinage begins.
3552
Whatever historical incident lies behind the present story For rough values, see the note to “talents” at
might have something to do with Josephus’ account at 2.50.
3553
Ant. 12.119-20, according to which the Antiochenes These were large, two-handled jars (the name
attempted, during the Judean revolt, to halt the special comes from the double handle) with a narrow neck, used
compensation that local Judeans received if they chose for transporting and storing liquids, especially wine and
not to use the oil provided in the gymnasium; but the oil. As a measure, the ἁµφορεύς was roughly 9 imperial
Syrian governor Mucianus (not yet in place here) insisted gallons (US 10.8 gallons; about 50 liters).
3554
on maintaining the practice. It might be that Judean Syr- So, 7/8 of each sale was profit (875% of John’s
ians were indeed finding it difficult to get oil at this time, investment). At Life 74 Josephus gives a different calcu-
and John in a nationalistic spirit sought to help them. lation, but it amounts to roughly the same profit.
398 book two

Galilee is particularly olive-productive3555 and at that time had been very productive indeed,
after sending in [to Syria] a large amount to those who needed it, as sole [supplier], he
gathered in some uncountable hoard3556 of resources—which he immediately began to use
against the one who had furnished him with the task.3557
593 Having come to suppose that if he could eliminate3558 Yosep he himself [Ioannes]
would command the Galilee,3559 he first ordered the bandits under himself to apply them-
selves more strenuously to acts of plunder,3560 so that with many people stirring up revolu-
tion throughout the region, either he might execute the general somewhere as he marched
out to provide assistance or, if he [Yosep] should stand by and watch the bandits, he
[Ioannes] might malign him before the locals.3561 594 On top of that he began spreading
word from far away that Yosep would betray their affairs3562 to the Romans, and he busied
himself 3563 with many such things [with a view] towards the man’s elimination.3564
Dabarittan (21.3) 595 At this time3565 some young men3566 who were guards encamped on the
youths rob royal Great Plain,3567 from Debarittha (a village),3568 ambushed Ptolemy the procurator3569 of
official. Life
126

3555
This adjective (ἐλαιοφόρος) appears only here lic” at 2.168. The charge of betraying (παραδίδωµι here;
in Josephus, and it is rarely attested elsewhere (Eurip- προδότης) the Judeans or Jerusalem to the Romans will
ides, Herc. 1178; Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 2.4.4; Hist. be a constant presence in War (3.354, 359; 4.146, 228,
plant. 8.2.8; Diodorus 4.17.4; 20.8.4; Dionysius, Ant. 254, 257, 281, 347; 5.439; cf. Life 129, 132-35, 416),
rom. 1.37.2; then in late antiquity and Middle Ages). used mischievously (Josephus claims) by rebel forces to
3556
See the notes to “countless horde,” a distinctive justify the removal of leaders they find uncongenial.
3563
Josephan phrase, at 2.43, 253. See the note at 2.259.
3557 3564
I.e., Josephus. John’s sharp business practice This (πρὸς κατάλυσιν) completes the inclusio
recalls that of the Aeduan warlord Dumnorix, who begun with the cognate verb at 2.593.
3565
reportedly (Caesar, Bell. gall. 1.18) monopolized the Life 126-44 places this complex of events, one of
local customs and taxes in order to create a large fund the reasonably stable elements between the two accounts
for his resistance against Rome. and apparently cherished by him as an illustration of his
3558
See the note at 2.445. This optative construction generalship, after the major revolt in Tiberias engineered
(εἰ καταλύσειεν) opens an inclusio that ends with the by John of Gischala (Life 87-103), though that revolt
cognate noun at the end of 2.594. comes later here (2.614-25).
3559 3566
The rough parallel at Life 122 has John “suppos- See the note to “youths”—a significant factor
ing that my success portended his elimination,” upon in raising tension levels in Judea according to War —at
which realization John gives way to immoderate envy 2.225. The form here (νεανίσκοι), however, is used spar-
and consequent actions. ingly in War. This is the last of 10 occurrences (8 of
3560
Josephus has not yet called John’s men “bandits,” these in bk. 1), whereas Ant. 1-19 hosts 72 occurrences,
and this label illustrates the rhetorical flexibility of his and Life, 3.
3567
usage. At 2.588 he had spelled out John’s great care in This is the Plain of Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley,
choosing recruits of physical and mental ability, mostly which runs from the SE, at the Jordan River around Scy-
from Tyrian regions, though at 2.589 he has described thopolis, to the NW, reaching the Mediterranean between
their behavior in bandit-like ways. This section on John’s Mt. Carmel and Ptolemais after passing through a bottle-
ruthless calculation, that general mayhem will give him neck at Carmel’s E end, before opening into the Plain of
a chance to unseat Josephus, has no parallel in Life. In Acco. Life 115-16 claims that Aebutius the decurion and
the corresponding passage there (§§ 122-25, just before a cavalry squadron, based in Gaba in the W bottleneck,
the robbery by Dabarittan youths as below), John’s envy had been entrusted with guarding the Plain for royal and
of Josephus leads him rather to try to attract the major Roman traffic.
3568
Galilean cities (Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Gabara) to his This small village (here ἀπὸ ∆εβαρίθθων), men-
cause. tioned otherwise by Josephus only at Life 126, 318
3561
Note the chiasm: John’s response if Josephus does (∆αβάριττα, ∆αβαριττηνοί)—symmetrically positioned
A, whereas if Josephus does B, John’s response. in that later work—was well situated as a base for guer-
3562
Possibly the incipient “commonwealth, state” (τὰ rilla activity in the Great Plain. At Life 318 Josephus
πράγµατα), in view of the hoped-for independence, on situates it both in the Plain and at the S limits of Gal-
the analogy of Latin res (publica); see the note to “repub- ilee. The biblical site of Daverat or Daberath, known
book two 399

Agrippa3570 and Bernice3571 and carried off all the baggage that he was escorting,3572 among
which there was a great deal of expensive clothing,3573 a hoard of silver goblets,3574 and
600 gold pieces.3575 596 Not being able to dispose of the plunder secretly,3576 they brought
it all to Yosep at Tarichea.3577 597 After castigating them for this violent act3578 against the
royals, he deposited* the things that had been brought in3579 with Annaeus,3580 the most

3575
for its pasture lands (Josh 19:12; 21:18; 1 Chron 6:72), Life 127: 500 gold pieces. If these were coins, as
Dabaritta lay at the W foot of Mt. Tabor. Although it seems likely, they would be in the denomination of the
could be said to lie on the Plain, it was still in a some- Roman aureus (the only gold available), each worth 25
what protected area (with Givat Moreh to the S), slightly (silver) denarii. Each aureus would represent roughly
removed and sheltered from the central Plain. Neither in a month’s wages for a laborer. See Schürer-Vermes
Life nor here, to be sure, does Josephus claim that the 2.62-67.
operation was conducted at Dabaritta, but only that this 3576
Life 126-28 omits this curious (and nefarious) ini-
was the youths’ home town. tial intention, rather portraying it as natural that the youths
3569
Or “bailiff, administrator.” See the notes to “proc- would bring their plunder to the rebel general Josephus.
urator” at 2.14 and “Syria” at 2.16. This Greek-named It is only when they do not immediately get their share
figure appears only here and in the Life parallel. At that they begin to dispute his motives (§§ 129-30). Here,
Life 126, however, the first of many small differences however, the youths have discerned Josephus’ intentions
between the accounts will be that the victim is Ptolemy’s in advance (2.598), and this apparently leads them first
wife, accompanied by a mounted security detail. One to try to dispose of the plunder themselves. Why they
might easily suppose that Josephus has adjusted the story would then bring it to Josephus, when their attempts
there to make the youths seem more daring or reprehen- failed, remains unclear, unless we should surmise that
sible and himself even more gallant, though the many they were forced to do so because the affair had since
other changes can have no such explanation. Either he
become known—and this is the point of the notice that
had War’s story before him and simply decided to tell
they were unable to launder the goods secretly.
it differently or he did not consult his earlier version, 3577
See the notes at 2.252, 573. About 6 km (3.75
relying on memory, perhaps on rough notes, and a flair
miles) N of Tiberias along the W shore of Lake Kinneret,
for story-telling. An audience would no doubt imagine
this was Josephus’ main base in E Galilee, with Tiberias
that such a high-ranking traveler with so much valuable
proving more difficult to control (esp. 2.632-46).
baggage would have an escort and something of a bag- 3578
Josephus does not explain τὸ βίαιον. Was Pto-
gage train.
3570 lemy (or were his unmentioned bodyguards) killed or
The Judean king with territories to the N/NE; see
the note at 2.220. Agrippa has been absent from his ter- assaulted? One would assume so. Life 127 says that
ritories for quite a while, having left them in the charge Ptolemy’s wife was forced to flee. At any rate, Life
of Noarus (2.481), whom he later removed (2.483), and 127-28 does not include such condemnation from Jose-
then accompanying Cestius Gallus in his failed campaign phus. He explains more matter-of-factly that the youthful
(2.502). He has mysteriously faded from the narrative, robbers were expecting to receive a share and so were
since we last saw him unsuccessfully negotiating with naturally disappointed.
3579
the Jerusalem rebels (2.525-26). Life 128-30 introduces an additional step. Jose-
3571
Sister of King Agrippa II. See the note at 2.227. phus (lying) first tells the youths that he will personally
3572
Life 126 claims that Ptolemy’s wife was travel- keep the stolen goods to use their proceeds for the walls
ing with the baggage from the territory of Agrippa and of Jerusalem. Only when they have left does he hand
Berenice to that governed by the Romans. If that vague the goods to two of King Agrippa’s closest friends (for
notice has any historical value, it may be that Agrippa’s conveyance to the king); that action is part of the secret
agents feared the loss of this wealth (e.g., in Tiberias or dealing, and the king’s friends are threatened with death
in the Golan) to rebel forces, and so it was being con- if they should mention it to anyone.
3580
veyed to more secure Roman sites. See the previous note. Life 131 has Josephus hand
3573
Life 127 has the wife escorted by 4 baggage mules the goods in secret to two men, “Dassion and Iannaeus
bearing much clothing. Here there is a litotes (“not a the son of Levis,” whose main qualification is that they
small amount”). are friends of King Agrippa who can be trusted to get
3574
Life 127 has rather a stash of silver (ἀργυρίου the goods to him secretly and quickly. Here, by contrast,
σταθµός), which suggests unformed blocks (cf. Life 68, “Annaeus” is chosen because he is the leading man of
296). Tarichea. He apparently has the public responsibility of
400 book two

powerful [man]3581 of the Taricheans, planning to send [them] to their owners3582 when the
occasion arose.3583
This exposed him to the greatest danger indeed. 598 For, on the one hand, those who
had done the plundering were growing indignant that they would not get3584 a share of
the things that had been brought; on the other hand, they had seen in advance3585 Yosep’s
intention, that he was about to grant [the fruits of] their labor to the royal [pair]. So at
night3586 they ran around to the villages3587 and portrayed Yosep to everyone as a traitor.3588
They filled the nearby cities so full of disturbance that at daybreak3589 100,000 armed
soldiers3590 had formed up against him.
Josephus 599 The mob that had assembled in the hippodrome3591 at Tarichea kept shouting out
denounced many things in rage: some had screamed3592 that they should stone,3593 others that they
at Tarichea
for intended should burn, the traitor; now Ioannes3594 was provoking3595 the masses, and with him a
betrayal. Life
133

3590
holding the material in safety, until Josephus can secretly Lit. “10 myriads.” If it is impossible that Josephus
get it to Agrippa. should have recruited 100,000 young Galileans (see the
It is likely that Annaeus is the same person as Life’s note to “young men” at 2.576), it is a fortiori unthink-
Iannaeus; this name appears only here, and (given that able that another 100,000 (or even the same)—nearly
War also omits the Hebrew name Iannaeus for the Has- twice the capacity of Rome’s Colosseum or a modern
monean king Alexander [1.85-106; contrast Ant. 13.320]) sports stadium, perhaps the entire population of Jeru-
it might well be adjusted for the sake of Josephus’ Roman salem at the time—could have gathered against him at
audience, to sound like the familiar Latin nomen Annius Tarichea, much less in the hippodrome there (see the
(cf. 4.487-88; Ant. 18.32-33; 19.18-20). note in 2.599). In this case, dividing by 100 might pro-
3581
See the note at 2.239. duce a plausible (though still large) figure. Although it
3582
I.e., Agrippa II and Berenice. is true that “myriads” by itself can have a general sense
3583
See the note to Annaeus: it appears from Life 131 (“a large number”), his addition of the “10” shows that
that in that story Josephus has already dispatched the he is aiming at a specific number.
goods to Agrippa via the king’s two friends. Life 132 both avoids this large figure and implies a
3584
Or even “cop a share.” The informal translation more realistic scene: the Taricheans persuade Josephus’
reflects Josephus’ τυχεῖν: they were missing their main élite bodyguard and soldiers (perhaps in the range of
chance. 200; see note to “person” at 2.583) to abandon him—an
3585
See the note to “first considered” at 2.25: this is alarming enough admission—and their presence at the
the last of 4 occurrences of this verb, which Josephus hippodrome is considered decisive, whereas they would
uses only in War 2. According to Life 129-30, by con- be trivial in the presence of 100,000.
3591
trast, the youths had brought the goods to Josephus in No remains of Tarichea’s hippodrome have yet
good faith, and only fastened on this explanation once been found; see Appendix A to BJP 9. But since the
he failed to give them their share. hippodrome of the large showcase-city, Caesarea, could
3586
Life 129 omits this close indication of time, leav- hold only about 10,000 (see Appendix A to this volume),
ing the impression that the youths may have taken some that of Tarichea—so close to the main city of Tiberias
days to reach the villagers with their news; accordingly, (see the note on Tiberias’ stadium at 2.618)—must have
the attack on Josephus’ home there appears to come in been smaller.
3592
the late evening (Life 136), whereas here it follows at Josephus is partial to this colorful verb (κράζω)
first light, after this antecedently implausible overnight in War , using it 12 times (only 3 in Antiquities); see the
tour of villages by the youths (2.598). note at 2.176.
3587 3593
Life 129 indicates the villages around Tiberias Greek καταλεύειν. The less vivid reading of MSS
to the S: perhaps partly because they are more densely PA (καταλύειν, “eliminate, destroy”) seems easy enough
situated, partly because of greater animosity to Josephus to understand as a careless default to a frequently used
in Tiberias itself. term in Josephus. It seems harder to explain “to stone”
3588
See the note to “betray their affairs” at 2.594. as a scribal emendation.
3589 3594
Josephus uses the Attic form (ἕως) almost con- Strangely, John has no role in the parallel story in
sistently, 13 times in the Atticizing War and 16 times Life, in spite of Josephus’ having recently said that John
in total. Only at Ant. 8.414 does he use the Ionic and had won the support of Tiberias (§§ 122-24): Jesus son
common Greek ἠώς. of Sapphias is the central figure there.
book two 401

certain Iesous son of Sapphias,3596 council-president of Tiberias at the time.3597 600 So

Yosep’s friends and bodyguards,3598 becoming terrified at the rush of the mob,3599 all fled
except for four,3600 whereas he himself, who was sleeping,3601 woke up*3602 only when the
fire was already being applied [to his house].3603 601 With the four who had remained
alongside urging [him] to flee,3604 he—terrified neither at his own isolation nor at the
horde of those who were opposing [him]3605—ripped apart his clothes,3606 sprinkled dust
on his head,3607 folded his hands behind [him], tied on his own sword by its ridge,3608 and
charged ahead.*3609

3595
This (παροξύνω) is a favorite term in Josephus. therefore apparently earlier than usual), and since he was
See note to “provoked” at 2.8. not expecting trouble. Life thus implies that the assem-
3596
As in the Life parallels, the MS tradition here bly of the mob took place in the late evening, rather
shows confusion over the father’s name (also Samphia, than around daybreak as here (2.598), where Josephus
Sappha, Aphia, Taffan). This man, the son, will appear has not yet woken up in the morning. Accordingly, Life
as a bold and determined rebel leader in the early stages omits War’s notice (2.598) that the youths had visited
of the Galilean campaign and the battle for Tarichea (to the villages overnight.
3602
which he will flee from Tiberias): 3.450-52, 457, 467, In Life 137, it is Simon who awakens Josephus.
3603
498. In Life Josephus introduces him twice: first as a This notice fulfills the expectation of burning at
factional leader of (allegedly) sailors and thugs (§ 66), 2.599.
3604
then as council-president as here (§ 134). His fate is Nero’s four advisers reportedly advised him, simi-
unknown. larly, to flee the indignities that threatened him if he
Iesous’ putative character (wretched, trouble-maker, remained near the city (Suetonius, Nero 49). According
sedition-fomenter, revolutionary) and role as provocateur to Life 137, Simon advises Josephus to die nobly as a
are considerably elaborated at Life 134-36: taking a copy general, by taking his own life rather than being killed—
of the laws as a stage prop, he whips up anti-Josephan or forced to kill himself—by enemies.
3605
fervor with a patent non sequitur. It is his rousing speech In place of this self-congratulation for a courage
that drives the mob, which he personally leads, to rush that his four colleagues lack, Life 137-38 has the sole
against Josephus’ home. (and courageous) companion Simon advise Josephus to
3597
As Schürer-Vermes (2.179-80; cf. A. H. M. Jones take his own life rather than leave himself to the crowd’s
1971: 275-76) show, Tiberias had a typical Hellenistic tender mercies. In place of the following list of adjust-
constitution with a council (βουλή: Life 64, 169, 284, ments to his appearance, Life 137-38 has Josephus sim-
300, 313, 381), a council president or ἄρχων (Life 134, ply entrust his affairs to God, dress in black, and suspend
271, 278, 294, 300), a board of 10 (Life 33, 69, 168, the sword as he goes out to meet the crowd.
3606
296), and various magistracies (Ant. 18.149). According War’s stratagems for winning over the hostile pop-
to War 2.641 below, the council numbered 600—possibly ulace, as follows, recall the reportedly genuine grief and
an inflation, given that councils of major Greek cities pleading of the chief priests and notables at 2.316, 322.
typically numbered 400 or 500. For Josephus’ audience they might also recall devices
3598
At 2.583 Josephus has claimed a bodyguard of used or imagined by Nero, according to later reports,
600, though Life 90, 92 give him a more realistic 200. when he faced a lethal revolt against his own rule (from
3599
Life 132 claims quite differently that Josephus’ the Praetorian Guard, Senate, and western legions). Sue-
military guard had been persuaded to desert him and tonius has him tear his clothes (Nero 42), ponder a trip
join the opposition. to Gaul, where he would break out in tears before the
3600
Life 137 emphatically has only one man, named rebels until they changed their minds (43), then consider
Simon, remain behind. In War ’s version there are strik- addressing the Roman people from the rostra, dressed all
ing echoes of Nero’s final hours: the young emperor too in black (as at Life 138), and beg their forgiveness for
was alarmingly deserted in his moment of peril by his his misdeeds until he persuaded them (47).
3607
bodyguard and all but four attendants (War 4.493; Sue- Greek καταπασάµενος δὲ τῆς κεφαλῆς κόνιν.
tonius, Nero 48); but Josephus will successfully employ It is uncertain whether the verb should indeed be
the stratagems that Nero only imagined. See further note καταπάσσω (“sprinkle”), as most MSS and as translated
to “clothes” in the next section. here, or καταµάω (“heap”) as in MS L, the 10th-cent.
3601
Life 136 elaborates that Josephus had turned in Suda lexicon (endorsed by Niese), and the episode con-
for the night because of fatigue (not for ordinary sleep, taining the closest parallel to these activities in the earlier
402 book two

602 At this, although there was compassion3610 among those with close ties3611 [to him]
and especially among the Taricheans, to those who were from the countryside and the
nearby [towns]3612 he seemed burdensome.3613 They kept slandering [him] and directing
[him] to promptly bring out these goods, which were communal, and to admit fully his
traitorous articles of agreement.3614 603 For they had taken3615 from his deportment that he
would deny none of the things of which he was suspected,3616 but that it was in connection
with the procuring of a pardon that he had done everything [possible] to attract pity.3617
Josephus’ 604 Yet his abasement3618 was the early preparation3619 for a maneuver:3620 using his
resourceful
speech. Life 141

3610
narrative (2.322). Sprinkling, especially of ashes (a pos- See the note to this key term at 1.12.
3611
sible meaning of κόνις in contexts of fire—so possibly Greek τῶν οἰκείως ἐχόντων could mean Jose-
here) on one’s head, was part of the biblical symbolism phus’ family, his domestic entourage, his close friends,
of mourning and/or repentance (LXX Job 2:12; Esther or (as the context suggests here) those with close links
4:1; Jer 6:26; 2 Macc 10:25). For the possible signifi- to Tarichea.
cance of the other verb, see note to “head[s]” at 2.322. 3612
According to the narrative (2.598), this would be
3608
The sequence is slightly awkward, given that Jose- the vast bulk of the 100,000, most of whom have been
phus presumably needed his hands, now tied behind his drawn in from surrounding areas by the youths.
back, in order to fasten on the sword (cf. Life 172, with 3613
By contrast, Life 138 makes Josephus an object
note in BJP 9). Further, the meaning and function of of pity before all. Therefore Life lacks a parallel to the
the last word in the clause (τὸ ἴδιον ξίφος ἐπιδήσας τῷ following expression of disgruntlement.
τένοντι) is a puzzle. The Greek participle translated “the 3614
See the note at 2.397 and (to “pact”) at 2.452.
ridge” means something that is stretched or extended; 3615
Possibly “they added to their grievances” (per-
when referring to body parts, it usually indicates ten- haps: his anticipated confession would only compound
dons or sinews (cf. Ant. 4.221). It can also refer to a their anger), in keeping with the common MSS read-
mountain ridge, as in the only other occurrence in Jose- ing προσειλήφεσαν. Following Niese and other mod-
phus (War 4.5). Modern translators (LCL, Pelletier, M-B) ern editors, Ι have translated Bekker’s emendation,
take it to mean Josephus’ neck. This must be influenced
προειλήφεσαν.
by the parallel at Life 138, where Josephus plainly says 3616
In Life 139 Josephus actually makes a preliminary
that he suspended the sword from his neck (τὸ ξίφος
quasi-confession, that he had done wrong (as they would
ἀπαρτησάµενος ἐκ τοῦ αὐχένος). But given the many
see it). The mob is willing to hear him out in the expec-
other disparities between these accounts (e.g., whether
tation that after his full confession they will be justified
four associates remained or only Simon), it seems hazard-
in killing him.
ous to explain one story by means of the other. Although 3617
This is the final reference in bk. 2 to a central
Josephus might mean his outstretched neck, it is also
tragic theme of the work: pity works constantly along
reasonable to take the dative as instrumental—indicating
with fear (the hallmark of tragedy; cf. Aristotle, Poet.
the ridge or edge of the sword by which he held it. It
might be safer for him to tie the sword by its middle, if 1449b.27; 1452.38; 1453a.3, 5, 1453b.12). See the notes
he intends to fall prostrate, than by its handle (in which to the programmatic language of the prologue, to “pity”
case the point is liable to stick in the ground and drive at 1.10 and “compassion” at 1.12.
3618
the handle into his body). In either case, the point of All 3 of the other occurrences of ταπείνωσις
the gesture in combination with the preceding one is to in Josephus have to do with the humiliation of Egypt,
render his weapon inaccessible: he comes in peace. for which Moses was reportedly born (Ant. 2.234, 238,
3609
This (προπηδάω) is a favorite verb in War , rarely 255).
3619
used before Josephus; see the note to “plunged ahead” This double compound, προπαρασκευή, seems
at 2.47. It seems from what follows (2.604) that by this unattested in literature before Josephus (who has it also
movement Josephus has put himself in a humiliating at Ant. 15.346), except in the Hippocratic corpus (Diaet.
posture, prostrate or facing downward. It is not clear, morb. 7.50). It appears a number of times in Soranus,
however, where the following exchanges took place, Phrynichus, Galen, and other 2nd-cent. CE authors. (The
whether in a confrontation of the advancing mob or back cognate verb, a favorite of Galen’s, has occasional clas-
in the hippodrome. Life 138 has Josephus reach the hip- sical and Hellenistic attestation.)
3620
podrome by taking a route that avoids the advancing mob Greek στρατήγηµα (“general’s behavior”), mean-
and only then falling prostrate and crying. ing the ruses and deceptions expected of generals (on
book two 403

craft3621 to make those who were indignant at him dissolve into factions against each
other,3622 [he promised that]3623 he would admit3624 everything that had caused them to
become enraged. 605 Accordingly, when it was given to him to speak, he declared:3625
I certainly was not planning either to send these goods back to Agrippa3626 or to take
advantage myself. I could never regard as a friend someone who was your foe, or [regard
as] gain that which brings harm to the collective. 606 But, Taricheans, when I observed
your own city in particular lacking security, and being in need of silver for the construc-
tion of a wall,3627 and since I was afraid that the Tiberian populace and those of the other
cities were lying ready to ambush what had been plundered,3628 I planned quietly to hold
back the goods so that I might put up a surrounding wall for you. 607 If this does not
seem right, I am producing what was brought to me and making it available [for you] to
plunder;3629 if I did not3630 reason well for you, punish your benefactor!

Josephus as “general,” see 2.562, 566, 569), as illustrated a profession of his willingness to die, if he must, then
by Julius Caesar and others. Josephus’ contemporary proceeds to dilate on the welcome that Tarichea has
Sex. Iulius Frontinus compiled a manual of such behav- given foreigners (who have come to join the cause of
iors. Although Frontinus writes in Latin, he borrows the rebellion), and finally offers to build Tarichea’s walls on
Greek term for the theme of his work (Strat. 1.1) and that deserving basis. Here, by contrast, the straight denial
defines στρατηγήµατα as skills displayed by generals of his (rightly understood) plans is followed by a clever
(sollertia ducum facta). Cicero also seems to prefer the effort to set Taricheans and Tiberians against each other
Greek word, for which the Latin has only the adjective by fabricating claims about the latter.
3626
imperatorium (Nat. d. 3.6.15). For Josephus’ other gen- This had been precisely Josephus’ intention
eral’s tricks in War , see 2.630; 3.171-76, 186-92; in Life (2.597); he advertises his deception.
3627
148, 163, 169, 265, 379. This casual observation, which must have been
3621
Here is a stunning example of Josephus’ “Phi- valid within the framework of this episode, undercuts
lonic” diction. The verb τεχνιτεύω is hardly attested in Josephus’ claim at 2.573, that after recruiting an army
literature before Philo (Dionysius, Isa. 4), who has it 21 he systematically set about walling the cities of Galilee,
times: it is his characteristic language. Josephus uses including Tarichea and Tiberias.
3628
it 3 times (also 4.422; Ant. 5.307), though after him it Josephus presents this as a mischievous claim on
disappears for a century or more. his part, deliberately concocted in order to dissolve his
3622
In War’s context this plan (κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων opposition into factions (2.604).
3629
στασιάσαι) is ironic, for it taps a deep vein in the larger This promise is not made in the Life parallel, per-
work. As author, Josephus fundamentally blames the haps in part because Josephus no longer has the goods;
downfall of Jerusalem on στάσις (1.10) and he observes it seems that he has actually sent them back to Agrippa
several times that this infighting made things easier for (Life 131). Of course, Josephus does not expect a demand
the Romans (3.495; 4.366-76; 5.30-34). to honor the promise anyway.
3630
With its different scene, Life 140 adds that Josephus The MSS, but especially the editors, show some
urgently had to set the crowd in the hippodrome at odds unhappiness with the wording here because one expects a
with each other, before the armed troops that had gone contrast: “If this does not seem right . . . ; but if I did rea-
to his house returned. son well, don’t punish your benefactor!” Reinach, Pelle-
3623
The Greek text is awkward here without a finite tier, and Thackeray read the text just this way, transposing
verb to anchor the participle ὁµολογήσων, and a lacuna “not” from protasis to apodosis. They were encouraged
is posited by Destinon and Niese; MS C provides by Hudson, who proposed either dropping it from the
ὑπισχνεῖτο, which I follow for convenience—admitting first clause or conjecturing the opposite adverb (thus “If
that one can place little confidence in this option. I did not reason badly” [εἰ µὴ κακῶς for καλῶς]). M-B
3624
This offer picks up the demand at 2.602, and leave the text as it is, but read the latter clause as “pun-
appears to be a blatant lie, though celebrated by Josephus ish only your benefactor.” There seems to be no serious
as a necessary ruse. problem, however, with reading the given text as a slight
3625
It is another side of Josephus’ complete flexibility elaboration of what goes before: “If you don’t agree, I’ll
in speech-writing that this version of his remarks has bring out the goods; if I did not reason well, punish me!”
little connection to, and no verbal overlap with, the ver- The direct invitation to punish or abuse is not absolute
sion he will give at Life 141-42. There he begins with but dependent on Josephus’ open promise to build walls
404 book two

(21.4) 608 With these [words] the Taricheans3631 began crying out emotionally,3632
whereas those from Tiberias together with the others began lambasting him and making
serious threats: both sides left Yosep to himself and began disagreeing with each other!3633
For his part, having taken courage in those who were already on his side—there were up
to 40,000 Taricheans3634—he began conversing more openly with the entire mob. 609 Af-
ter roundly scolding3635 their impetuosity, he affirmed that although he was going to wall
Tarichea from what was on hand, he would similarly secure the other cities as well:3636 they
would not be short of resources if they could agree as to whom it was necessary to provide
[the walls] against, and not become provoked3637 at the one doing the providing.3638
(21.5) 610 At that, whereas the rest of the mob—those who had been tricked3639—
withdrew, albeit still enraged,3640 2,000 armed men3641 rushed after him.3642 Although he
overtook them to reach his residence before they did,3643 they were standing outside mak-
Josephus ing threats.
besieged in 611 With them3644 Yosep employed* a second trick:3645 he went up on the roof and, after
residence, tricks
and flays the
mob’s leaders.
Life 148
3636
for the city. Note the parallel at Ant. 13.401-6, where Life 144: “I would construct walls also for Tiberias
the widowed Queen Alexandra invites the Pharisees to and the other cities of theirs that needed them.” Explicit
abuse the corpse of her hated husband after promising mention of Tiberias is missing here, perhaps because
them great power in her new government. (They decide mischievously suspecting that city was the main point
to give him a splendid funeral.) of Josephus’ tactic in the first place (2.606).
3637
3631
MS P, against the majority and Latin, has Jose- See the note at 2.8.
3638
phus change his normal spelling (Ταριχεᾶται) here—as This traditional call to abandon internal strife for
at Life 143, 162—, writing Ταριχεῶται instead. unity against a common enemy (i.e., Rome and Agrippa;
3632
This rare verb (ἀνευφηµέω) counts as distinctive cf. 2.638) is part of the ruse—to deflect anger against
Josephan vocabulary, hardly attested before his time in Josephus himself.
3639
literature (Euripides, Or. 1335; Sophocles, Trach. 783; Greek τῶν ἠπατηµένων (by Josephus). The same
Plato, Phaed. 60a), though War has it 3 times (also 4.113, phrase is used at 2.261; see the note there and to “trick-
117). It will become more popular in the 2nd century ery” at 2.106. This is a remarkably clear statement of his
(Nicomachus, Theol. arith. 22; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. willingness to use deception against his own populace
Clit. 3.5.6; Chariton, Call. 7.3.11; Herodian, Exc. Marc. for valuable ends (and saving his own life). Josephus’
6.4.1; Aelian, Var. hist. 12.1). flexibility is evident here: whereas deception, guile, and
3633
Thus Josephus has achieved his goal (2.604, 606). trickery on the part of others have been roundly con-
demned (2.106, 249, 259, 261, 586), he celebrates his
Although Life 143 also sees the Taricheans (and their
own Odysseus-like capacity to deceive—in the interests
resident outsiders) at odds with outsiders after Josephus’
of his assumed virtue.
speech, he does not use his speech there to create dissen- 3640
If Josephus’ ruse were so successful, it is not
sion: it arises spontaneously from his clever promise to
clear why the mob were still enraged, except perhaps to
the Taricheans, not matched by a commitment to the oth-
connect the literary episodes. Contrast Life 144: every-
ers; Josephus quickly remedies the problem by promising
one comes to trust him and so they disperse to their
walls also for Tiberias (§ 144). Here he does not explic- homes. He opts there to give the next episode a new
itly promise Tiberians a wall, but he will make a general beginning.
promise to others (2.609)—after they have fought each 3641
This observation opens an inclusio, to be closed at
other for a while and he is able to reconcile them, having 2.613 when these men abandon their weapons.
successfully deflected anger from himself. 3642
Life 144 by contrast considers the matter settled,
3634
This appears to be a substantial inflation. Accord- and Josephus simply returns home with 20 soldiers as
ing to best estimates, the Roman headquarters city of escort and no mob in pursuit; there the next episode
coastal Caesarea had a population of no more than arises from new instigations.
20,000, with about 25% more outside the city walls; 3643
It would perhaps be more convenient if Josephus
see the note to “population” at 2.266. If even Antipas’ took a different route from the mob’s, as he claims to
former capital Tiberias could not have been as large, its have done in reaching the hippodrome at Life 138.
near neighbor Tarichea was surely smaller. 3644
Here these are the 2,000 armed malcontents left
3635
See the note at 2.182. over from the previous episode; at Life 145, a new round
book two 405

he had settled down the uproar3646 with [a motion of] his right hand, declared that he did
not know what they were expecting to get; he could not hear because of the confusion of
their shouting. But whatever they were directing, he would do it all if they would send
to him inside those who would discuss things with him quietly.3647 612 When they heard
these things, the notables3648 went inside along with the leaders.3649 He [Yosep] dragged
them into the very innermost part of the house3650 and, after he closed off the courtyard
entry,3651 lashed them to the point that he exposed all of their innards.3652 Meanwhile, the
mob was standing around, figuring that those who had gone inside were involved in pro-
tracted argumentation.3653 613 But all of a sudden he opened the doors3654 and discharged
the blood-soaked men—and instilled such terror in those making the threats that they
discarded their weapons3655 and fled.
(21.6) 6143656 At this Ioannes intensified his envy3657 and crafted3658 a second plot3659

of instigation produces 600 armed soldiers, who came to works, showing clearly the same authorial hand in dif-
set fire to Josephus’ house. ferent kinds of narrative, albeit using different sources
3645
Greek ἀπάτη, cognate to “tricked” in the previous and at different points in his life.
3651
sentence. See the note there and to “trickery” at 2.106. Since houses in the region—whether single- or
3646
This dramatically important word (θόρυβος) is multi-family complexes—were typically built around a
usually metaphorical, in which case I translate as “dis- central courtyard, that courtyard was itself “the inner-
order”; see note at 1.4. most part of the house.” When Josephus bars the entry-
3647
According to Life 146, Josephus invites the mob way to it, he appears to be saying (since it is not as if the
to send in people to receive the goods (from the Dabarit- 2,000 are in the courtyard) that this is where the leaders
tans’ robbery) and so calm the popular rage. are being held for their punishment. That would make a
3648
See the notes at 2.193 and to “powerful [men]” at certain sense: it was the largest area (and easiest to clean
2.239. According to 2.599, this move against Josephus after the coming bloodshed).
3652
has been led by the Tiberian council-president Iesous, Life 147 has Josephus first whip his victim and
and it stands to reason that other Tiberian councilors then order him to cut off his own hand, which he must
would be involved, as they will be in the revolt soon to then hang from his neck (an awkward image).
3653
come (2.632-34, 638-41). This is the only occurrence of δικαιολογέοµαι in
3649
Or “magistrates, councilors” (ἄρχοντες); see the War , though it appears 5 times in Antiquities. It is a dis-
note to “magistrates” at 2.216. Perhaps because of the tinctively Polybian term (e.g., 3.21.1, 6; 20.9.9; 24.11.7;
impression of barbarity that this story might well create, 30.17.1). He accounts for 11 of the 24 attestations before
with the leading Tiberians as Josephus’ victims, Life 147 Josephus.
3654
has the mob send in only one man: their most audacious If the scenario described in the preceding notes is
and courageous representative. accurate, these doors are not those to the central court-
3650
Josephus presupposes a large domus-like house yard (he has not mentioned doors there), but rather those
with many rooms and an upper open story, seconded to the outside of the entire house complex, where the
from a wealthy person (see the note to “lying back” at crowd has been kept waiting.
3655
Life 222 in BJP 9). This phrase (εἰς τὸ µυχαίτατον τῆς This completes the inclusio begun at 2.610 with
οἰκίας) is remarkably formulaic in Josephus: it occurs the deliberate mention of their weapons. For the phrase,
precisely as here at 5.427 (except the plural “houses”) see the note at 2.524.
3656
and Ant. 7.229, and with structures other than houses The following story of a revolt in Tiberias engi-
at War 3.27; Ant. 8.311. This is remarkable for at least neered by John of Gischala (2.614-25) suggests the
3 reasons: (a) this superlative is the only form of the impossibility of reconstructing Josephus’ career from
adjective µύχιος (which already means “in-most,” and the conflicting accounts in War and Life. In the later
so rarely needs a superlative) that Josephus uses; (b) work, although the parallel story (§§ 85-103) is verbally
this form of the superlative is irregular, one of several quite close to this one at several points, its location is
possibilities, and very rare (attested before him only in entirely different. Instead of being a second plot by John,
Aristotle, Mund. 393a; Strabo 7a.1.20); and yet (c) not after his involvement with the spoils of the Dabarittans’
only does Josephus use this rare superlative exclusively, robbery (here), there it comes before the robbery (Life
but he repeats the formulaic phrase above (unattested 126). And whereas here John’s failure will lead to the
elsewhere) several times, through both of his major loss of his followers (2.625) and an appeal to Jerusalem
406 book two

against Yosep. Affecting3660 illness, he begged3661 Yosep in a letter to allow him to make use
John’s second of the hot baths in Tiberias3662 for care.3663 615 He [Yosep], since was not yet suspecting
plot, fomenting the plotter,3664 wrote* to his subordinates in the city3665 that they should provide Ioannes
Tiberian revolt.
Life 87 both hospitality and amenities.3666 Having taken full advantage of these, after two days he
[Ioannes] began to accomplish what he was there for and, ruining3667 some by tricks3668 and
others with goods, he kept inducing3669 them to defect from Yosep.3670 616 When Silas3671

against Josephus (2.626), in Life John retains his follow- tion), the language for this plot is so close to that in Life
ers and vigorous public activity for most of the remain- 85 as to suggest borrowing in the later version.
3663
ing narrative, losing the followers only near the end (Life Greek θεραπεία opens an inclusio, which will
372)—long after the delegation from Jerusalem that he close at 2.617—with a different sense of the word.
3664
requested (Life 189-98) has come and gone. This justification perhaps makes better sense at
3657
That success (εὐπραγία) or good fortune Life 86, where the Dabarittan affair has not yet occurred
(εὐτυχία) provoke envy (φθόνος) was a commonplace of and John has not exploited it as here against Josephus
rhetoric and popular morality (Pindar, Pyth. 7; Isocrates, (2.599), though in both cases Josephus has had ample
Pac. 124; Aristotle, Rhet. 1386b, 1387b; Top. 109b; Eth. reason to suspect John (here 2.590-94). He appears to
eud. 1221a: “Envy consists in being annoyed at prosper- claim here a kind of clementia, a willingness to forgive
ity more often than one ought to be [φθονερὸς δὲ τῷ and forget, that he will attribute systematically to Titus
λυπεῖσθαι ἐπὶ πλείοσιν εὐπραγίαις], for the envious in the later narrative (4.101-6; 5.329; 6.12, 29-32, 78-9,
are annoyed by the prosperity even of those who deserve 152-56, 190, 228, 353, 356)—whereas he himself will
to prosper”; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.42.1; Philo, Somn. remain duly suspicious and wily.
3665
1.223; Jos. 5; Appian, Lib. 495), and it is a basic compo- Life 86 elaborates: “I wrote to those entrusted by
nent of Josephus’ rhetorical arsenal: “It is impossible in me with the administration of Tiberias, each by name.”
success (εὐπραγία) to avoid envy (φθόνος)” (War 1.208; Both passages are initially puzzling inasmuch as (a)
cf. 1.72, 84, 463, 633-34; 2.82, 181; 4.393; 5.97; cf. the leadership of Tiberias appears generally opposed to
1.67, Ant. 2.27, 201; 4.14; 6.59, 193; 10.212, 250, 256; him (2.599), all the more after his violent treatment of
13.288, 402; 15.130, 349; 16.248; 18.240-41; 20.21; Life their representatives (2.612-13), and (b) he has not yet
80, 85, 122, 204, 423; Apion 1.213). indicated any measures to administer the city through
3658
Since this verb appears only here in Josephus, his own agents, though Life 69 has indicated his alli-
though he could have used many for the preparation of a ance with a faction led by one Capella (see BJP 9 and
plot, and since the phrase ἤρτυσεν ἐπιβουλὴν seems to notes). We soon learn (2.616), however, that Josephus
be attested before him only at Herodotus 1.12, where it has appointed Silas to “guard” (or “watch”) Tiberias in
refers to the notorious plot of the Lydian king’s wife and his absence.
3666
Gyges against the king, he may well intend an allusion This pair (ξενία καὶ τὰ ἐπιτήδεια) is somewhat
to that famous story. formulaic in Josephus—alone among extant writers (cf.
3659
The first, here in War, was John’s effort to whip up Ant. 1.181; 14.131; 15.199).
3667
the masses in Tarichea against Josephus for not handing In its preceding 23 appearances in War 2, this
over the goods captured by the Dabarittan youths from favorite verb (διαφθείρω) has usually meant (physically)
Agrippa’s official (2.599). Life has a completely different “destroy, ruin, or dispose of ” (i.e., kill); see the note to
order: the equivalent to the following episode there (§§ “destroyed” at 2.11. Here he gives it a moral sense.
3668
85-103) happens there before the robbery by the Dabarit- Greek ἀπάται, cognate to “tricked” at 2.610 and
tan youths (§§ 126-48) just recounted here—an episode “tricks” at 2.611. See the note to “trickery” at 2.106.
3669
in which John has no role there. See the notes to this verb at 1.5; 2.55. Life 87
3660
See the note to “dissembled” at 2.293. Josephus emphasizes by contrast the bad character of those who
makes John a specialist in pretense (2.587-89, 591, defected: those delighting in change, sedition, revolution,
617). and upheaval.
3661 3670
See the note at 2.128: this is the language for a In the corresponding passage (Life 88) we learn
supplicant, often used of addresses to God. that John easily persuaded the influential Justus of
3662
The reference is to Hammat, just S of Tiberias (cf. Tiberias and his father Pistus, unmentioned in War but
Ant. 18.36-37), where some 17 natural hot springs (at ca. important to the later work, to follow him rather than
600 C) continue to attract spa customers. Although Life Josephus.
3671
presents this story in a completely different place relative Josephus’ lieutenant will appear also at Life 89,
to Josephus’ career (see note to “second plot” in this sec- 272. His name offers interesting possibilities. Greek
book two 407

(who had been appointed by Yosep to guard the city)3672 realized these things, he wrote*
to him in haste3673 about the matters related to the plot. Yosep, when he received the letter,
after traveling strenuously by night,3674 arrived at Tiberias in the early morning.3675 617
Whereas the rest of the throng went out to meet him, Ioannes, although he suspected that
this visit had to do with him, nevertheless sent one of the notables3676 and pretended3677
feebleness; being bed-ridden,3678 he said, his attentiveness3679 [upon Josephus] would have
to wait.3680
618 When Yosep had assembled the Tiberians in the stadium,3681 he began trying to Josephus
narrowly
escapes death
from John’s
soldiers. Life 96
Σίλας might be understood as representing the Roman War (also 3.251, 319; 4.63).
3676
cognomen Sila (taken from the forest of the Bruttii), Many of Tiberias’ élite appear inclined from the
which had many cognate forms (Kajanto 1982: 237). The start to oppose Josephus (2.612); now they have been
name appears in the NT, and comparison of Paul’s letters actively won over to John’s faction.
3677
(Silvanus at 1 Thess 1.1; 2 Thess 1.1) with Acts (Silas See the note to “affecting” at 2.614 (this pretense
at 15:22, 27, 32; 16:19, etc.) suggests that Silas could reinforces the inclusio in this paragraph); for the differ-
abbreviate Silvanus, one of several related cognomina ent verb here see the note to “pretend” at 2.587.
3678
based on silva (woods) or Silvanus (the god of forests; Greek κλινήρης seems to be attested in literature
Kajanto 1982: 91, 155, 213-14, 310). If it were Roman, before Josephus only in Philo (Spec. 3.106); Josephus
we might imagine that Silas was one of the Tiberian élite has it otherwise only at Ant. 8.236. From his time onward
along with other bearers of Latin names (cf. Life 32-33 it becomes much more common (Plutarch, Pyr. 11.4;
with notes in BJP 9). A complication is the appearance Arat. 34.6; Mor. [Sen. resp.] 797c; [Clement of Rome],
elsewhere in Josephus of Silases from the E, such as the Hom. 5.2.3; Soranus, Gyn. 1.46.3; Herodian, Part. 67;
Babylonian (2.520; 3.11, 19), suggesting that the Greek Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.80 [Kaibel]).
3679
form also represented an Aramaic name (cf. Ant. 14.40; See the note at 2.2. This is the attentiveness or
18.204; 19.299, 317-25, 353). care (cf. Latin cura) due to a more powerful person or
3672
Life 89 calls Silas Josephus’ “general,” though his a god. The occurrence of θεραπεία here completes the
command of the city on behalf of Josephus is evidently inclusio begun with this word, but in a very different
tenuous. sense, at 2.614.
3673 3680
The expression κατὰ τάχος, only here in War 2, Life 91 tells a different story: John comes out to
was not common among ancient authors. Though it was greet Josephus in a troubled frame of mind and, realizing
used 11 times by Herodotus, it must count as a Thucy- that he is in danger, quickly returns home. It appears that
dideanism (with 44 occurrences); it is later attested Josephus is most interested here in the inclusio created
chiefly in Polybius (8 times), Diodorus (33), Dionysius by the fake illnesses at the beginning and end of this
(6), and Josephus’ War (10). Curiously, Josephus uses it paragraph.
3681
only in War (bks. 1, 2, 4, 7). The stadium of Tiberias was speculatively located
3674
This notice would not make good sense to some- by Lämmer (1976: 43-54) about halfway between Tibe-
one who knew Galilean geography. As far as the audi- rius and Beth-Maon to the NW. Salvage excavations in
ence knows, Josephus is still in Tarichea, the scene of 2002 led by Moshe Hartal on the grounds of the Galei
the previous episode (2.599-613), but that lies only about Kinneret Hotel, in this general location, which uncovered
6 km (3.75 m.) from Tiberias, about an hour’s walk, and a large section of a curved wall (from a structure of some
would not require strenuous travel through the night. 39 m [128 ft] diameter at the curved end, perhaps of
Life 86, by contrast, incidentally notes that Josephus was standard stadium length [200 m.]), appear to represent
staying at the Galilean village of Cana (apparently Kh. this structure. Though the discovery was widely reported
Qanah, on the N edge of the Beth Netofa valley, more in newspapers in 2002, it does not yet seem to have been
than 20 km [12.5 miles] from Tiberias, depending on the subject of an official report. Bernett (2007: 228-36)
the route) when he authorized John’s trip to Tiberias. plausibly connects the stadium of Tiberias with the hip-
This location would make much better sense of both podrome of nearby Tarichea as effectively part of one
his ignorance of John’s activity there, until he received entertainment complex. The argument of Lämmer and
a report from his agent, and his long overnight trip. Life Bernett that these facilities must imply the presence of
90 has Josephus travel “through the entire night” with Kaiserspiele in Tiberias, albeit without cultic or iconic
200 men. enhancement (Bernett 2007: 235), is more difficult. If
3675
See the note to “daybreak” at 2.598. Here the one could hold games without cultic apparatus, why the
cognate term is ἑωθινός, which Josephus uses only in need to connect them with cult at all?
408 book two

discuss with them what had been in the letter;3682 but he [Ioannes] secretly sent in3683
armed soldiers3684 and ordered them to dispose of him. 619 When the populace caught
sight of these men baring their swords,3685 they shouted out. At this yelling3686 Yosep
turned around3687 and, when he noticed the blade already set for the slaughter,3688 leapt
off towards the shore;3689 he had been standing, addressing the populace,3690 on a certain
bank of six-cubit height.3691 By leaping up3692 onto a boat lying at anchor,3693 he escaped
with two bodyguards3694 into the middle of the lake.3695
(21.7) 620 Now his soldiers quickly grabbed their weapons and began to advance
against the plotters. Then Yosep became anxious that if internecine war3696 were set in

3682
Life 92-93 gives more space to the opening of though it appears 7 times in Ant. 1-9. There it normally
Josephus’ speech: dismissal of his bodyguard, request indicates a fairly substantial hill, whereas here (as at Ant.
from the mob for a speech, and his initial appeals about 9.128) a mound or bank is in view. Herodotus discusses
not defecting so quickly. Only when he is in rhetorical the word twice, once using it as a Greek equivalent for a
flight there do John’s men appear. Libyan term (4.192) and once citing it as the name given
3683
See the note at 2.8. by Cyreneans to a hilly region of their country (4.199).
3684 3692
Life 95 has John send in the most trustworthy of There is a great deal of leaping, charging, and
his “thousands” of soldiers. plunging in Josephus’ self-description (many on the
3685
See the note to this characteristic Josephan phrase πηδάω root as here), as he illustrates his athletic prow-
at 2.173. ess. See the note to “charged ahead” at 2.601.
3686 3693
See the note to this distinctive language of War Greek παρορµέω occurs only here in Josephus and
at 2.132. very rare elsewhere (Philo Mech., Parasc. 95 [Thevenot];
3687
In Life 94 it is rather Josephus’ attendants who Plutarch, Cim. 12.5—supporting a supposition of earlier
interrupt his speech to draw his attention to the arrival fragments).
3694
of John’s men. On this point, remarkably, War and Life 96 nearly
3688
Or “for the butchery, sacrifice” (see the note to agree: the men are there named as Iacob (the bodyguard)
“butchered” at 2.30). Josephus poeticizes the drama, using and Herod (a helpful Tiberian).
3695
“iron [blade]” (σίδηρος) rather than the prosaic “sword” This is a puzzling notice because the following
and the highly resonant σφαγή—with connotations of narrative leaves Josephus’ whereabouts uncertain, even
innocent sacrifice amply developed in this volume— when the people begin flocking to see him (2.622-23),
rather than simply having someone about to strike his until 2.634 where he turns at Tarichea. Life is more atten-
neck. He will use the same vivid conjunction of words, tive to these details, and at § 96 has him reasonably flee
which seems unattested in earlier authors, at 3.385, to from Tiberias’ stadium via the lake N to Tarichea (as also
describe his near-death experience at Iotapata. at the mirror event in Life 304).
3689 3696
The particular service performed by the friendly This (πόλεµος ἐµφύλιος) is the first occurrence
Tiberian named Herod at Life 96 is that he leads Jose- in bk. 2 (cf. 1.216) of a phrase that will become impor-
phus to the lake (cf. § 304, where he must reach the lake tant in the central section of War (4.131, 375, 441, 495,
by an alleyway). Given the lakeside location of Tibe- 545 [these last of Rome]; 5.19; 6.343; cf. 2.638 below;
rias and its stadium, War ’s account (implying immediate Ant. 7.20, 22; 14.283; 16.189; 19.184 [of Rome]; Life
access) seems more plausible, though Life may simply 100, 265, 409), as a more descriptive alternative to the
be suggesting that Josephus could not leave the stadium Leitmotif στάσις (1.10: “civil strife”), which can also
structure by the obvious routes. be qualified by ἐµφύλιος; see the note to “civil war” at
3690
This is the only occurrence of δηµηγορέω in War . Life 100 in BJP 9. The Greek phrase appears to be of
Of 5 others, one is at the parallel to this story, Life 92, Polybian origin (1.65.2, 71.5, 7; 2.18.4; 6.46.9; 30.11.5);
which again suggests that he consulted this text when it is used often by Diodorus (11 times, sometimes per-
writing the later one. haps via Posidonius), Dionysius (20 times), and Philo
3691
About 3 m (nearly 10 ft), and therefore in keeping (11 times), as by Josephus (19 times) and Plutarch (35
with Josephus’ many other athletic feats in this episode times); Appian uses it 7 times in his Civil War. The
(see next note). It was common for Greek stadiums to term corresponds to Latin bellum domesticum or bellum
use natural hills or earthen banks for at least part of the civile, which were in wide use (cf. the works by Caesar
seating (cf. Lämmer 1976: 45-46). Life 92 (cf. 96), by and Appian, as well as Lucan’s Pharsalia) because they
contrast, positions Josephus on a high, man-made sta- were perceived as representing the most serious threat to
dium wall. This is the only occurrence of βουνός in War , Rome in this period.
book two 409

motion,3697 because of the envy of a few,3698 it might come at the cost of the city:3699 he
sent* a messenger to his own men [telling them] to provide only for their own safety, and
neither to kill anyone nor to prosecute3700 those responsible. 621 Whereas they did indeed John flees to
hold their peace, obeying the instruction, when those who were up in the surrounding Gischala. Life
101
countryside learned of the plot and the one who had orchestrated it,3701 they started gather-
ing against Ioannes.3702 But he outpaced* them, fleeing to Gischala, his home town.3703
622 Now the Galileans were streaming together3704 from each town toward Yosep, and
the many tens of thousands of armed soldiers3705 who appeared were shouting that they
had come for Ioannes, the common plotter: they would incinerate him together with3706
the home town3707 that had admitted him.3708 623 Although he [Yosep] affirmed that he
accepted their goodwill, he also put a stop to their charge, preferring to subdue his ad-
versaries by savvy rather than to kill them.3709
624 So he took note, by name, of those from each city who had stood together with Josephus breaks
Ioannes in revolt3710—the commoners were eagerly identifying their own people—and by up John’s fol-
lowing. Life 370

3697
This is characteristic Josephan language; see the eray, M-B, Vitucci, and Pelletier. Since, however, it is
note at 2.354. much easier to explain VRC’s reading as a later scribal
3698
The “few” in question are apparently John of Gis- adjustment (for Tiberias was not John’s home town), we
chala and his followers, who have reportedly initiated should prefer the more difficult reading, all the more
the Tiberian revolt from envy; see the note to this word because it is found in generally better MSS. In that case
at 2.614. the language is sarcastic, receiving its point from the
3699
Greek παραναλώσῃ τὴν πόλιν. The verb παρα- phrase “that had welcomed him”—ὑποδέχοµαι suggest-
ναλίσκω occurs in Josephus only in War (also 3.188; ing “harboring a stranger, providing refuge,” or similar.
4.119; 5.561); cf. 2.638 (“expend . . . beforehand”) for a Perhaps also because John’s actual home town of Gis-
cognate. Although the city here is Tiberias, the observa- chala was so far away and inaccessible, the Galileans
tion that emotion leading to civil strife can result in the were only too happy to attack the many who had defected
destruction of a city is a crucial theme in War , especially from Josephus in John’s adopted home of Tiberias.
3708
in relationship to Jerusalem (cf. 1.9-12). At Life 99, the angry Galileans along with Jose-
3700
See the note to this word at 2.351. phus’ own friends counsel him to take Tiberias by storm,
3701
This language of orchestrating or contriving a plot raze it, and sell its women and children into slavery.
3709
(συσκευάζω + ἐπιβουλή) is distinctively Josephan. It Julius Caesar’s renowned clemency toward ene-
seems not to be attested in literature before him, though mies (recalled by inter alios Suetonius, Jul. 74-75: inhi-
he uses the collocation several times in different works bere maluit quam vindicare; cf. Coulter 1931), the theme
(Ant. 16.324; Life 110, 225). of a temple dedicated to him (Dio 44.6), is matched by
3702
Since Life 96 has Josephus in Tarichea at this Josephus’ repeated protestations of such an inclination,
point, that narrative claims that it was the Taricheans especially in Life, to avoid civil war and bloodshed: Life
who first became enraged against their Tiberian neigh- 80-84, 99-103, 174, 244, 259, 369.
bors and then stirred up anger in the rest of Galilee At Life 100, 102-3, Josephus’ mere insistence that
(§ 97). matters with John be settled without bloodshed suffices
3703
As 2.585. But Life 101 has John leave for Gis- to calm the masses. He cannot there pursue the strategy
chala only after the following move against him from the described here of identifying John’s followers and requir-
Galilean masses, at which he becomes afraid. ing them to abandon him, because John must remain a
3704
See the note to this formulaic phrase at 2.170. central figure in that narrative; Josephus will only be
3705
On the problem of such numbers, see the note to able to do what is described here near the end of Life
“100,000 young men” at 2.576. (§§ 370-72), after a great deal more nefarious activity
3706
The doubly compound verb συγκαταφλέγω is on John’s part.
3710
rare outside Josephus, and late (Dionysius, Ant. rom. This artful verb (συναφίστηµι) was favored by
14.2.2; Philo, Flacc. 69; Plutarch, Mor. [Virt. inf.] 499c; Thucydides (1.57.1, 57.5, 59.2, 104.2, 115.5; 3.47.2, 69.6;
Lucian, Nigr. 30; Appian, Illyr. 61; Bell. civ. 2.3.21), 4.88.2) and Diodorus (1.68.3; 2.26.2; 14.17.3; 15.66.4;
though he has it 3 times (also War 1.50; 6.280). 16.17.4; 18.40.2; 19.46.3, 47.2; 36.2.4), who account for
3707
So MSS PAML. Or simply “city” (πόλιν rather 17 of the 23 attestations before the 6 in Josephus (also
than πατρίδα) as in MSS VRC and followed by Thack- 1.474; 2.645; 4.647; Ant. 17.319; Apion 1.271).
410 book two

means of heralds threatened that within five days,3711 if they had not abandoned Ioannes,
he would plunder their property and also incinerate3712 their houses—with their families
in them.3713 625 So 3,000 defected immediately:3714 they came to him and discarded
their weapons at his feet. With those who were left (there were as many as 2,000 Syr-
ian refugees)3715 Ioannes drew back from the more obvious plots in favor of the covert
kinds.3716
John secretly 6263717 Secretly, at any rate, he kept sending messengers to Hierosolyma maligning
maligns Yosep for the scope of his power,3718 insisting that he would very shortly3719 come as ty-
Josephus to
Jerusalem rant3720 of the mother-city3721 unless he were seized beforehand. 627 Whereas the populace,
authorities. Life although they already knew these [things],3722 did not take them seriously,3723 the powerful
189
[men] along with some of the magistrates,3724 out of envy,3725 secretly sent resources to
Ioannes for a levy of mercenaries,3726 so that he might wage war against Yosep;3727 they

3711
In the similar story at Life 370 Josephus gives effect Josephus’ removal. At § 193, Simon tells the high
John’s followers 20 days to consider their futures. priest Ananus that Josephus’ influence and power need
3712
See the note at 2.58. to be restrained.
3713 3719
This threatened barbarity does not appear at Life The phrase ὅσον οὐδέπω is rarely attested before
370, where only burning homes and plundering property Josephus (Heraclides, Frag. 140 [Wehrli]; Menander,
are envisaged. Asp. 113). Philo has it twice (Sacr. 135; Mos. 1.32), but
3714
The similar story at Life 371 has 4,000. Josephus uses it much more frequently (3.261; 4.96, 539;
3715
Puzzlingly, Josephus has said (2.588; see note 5.33; Ant. 4.160; 5.340), apparently reflecting a new fash-
there) that John began with 400 refugees from Tyre and ion in the late 1st century CE (cf. Plutarch, Per. 29.1; Alc.
its villages. The parallel at Life 372 will give him about 14.4; Alex. 26.5; Mor. [Suav. sec. Epic.] 1103d; Ignatius,
1,500 refugees from the city of Tyre itself; so at least Ep. 2.8.2; Lucian, Ver. hist. 1.8; Icar. 22; Merc. 31; Mar-
that number is close to this one. Although the MSS here cus Aurelius, Med. 4.3.4; 5.33.1; 7.70.1; 10.11.1).
3720
show no demurrals, evidently Josephus is talking about See the note to “tyrants” at 1.10.
3721
the same group (Tyrians). If so, either he himself refers See the note at 2.400.
3722
to them as both Tyrians and Syrians or an early copyist’s The referent is unclear: these accusations? Facts?
error has created the difference. See the next note.
3716 3723
Whereas John’s loss of followers and reduction This appears to mean that the populace of Jeru-
to surreptitious activity leads here to the delegation epi- salem was not concerned about Josephus. At Life 194,
sode, in Life (a) the Tiberian revolt just described (Life similarly, the high priest Ananus rebuffs Simon’s initial
85-103) does not result in John’s loss of followers; (b) bid to have Josephus removed on the ground that many
the delegation affair is completely decoupled from that chief priests and also the mob (the common people) sup-
first Tiberian revolt and occupies the middle part of the port Josephus.
3724
book (beginning only at Life 189); and so (c) therefore See the note to “magistrates” at 2.216. In con-
the delegation affair cannot be a consequence of John’s trast with Life 193-96, which claims that Simon son of
loss of followers and withdrawal to clandestine activities. Gamaliel instructed John’s brother Simon to bribe Ananus
There he loses his followers only at §§ 371-72. and Jesus, the leading former high priests, to send the
3717
It is remarkable that the following story of the delegation. Scholars generally hold that Life’s admission
delegation sent from Jerusalem to oust Josephus should of the high status of Josephus’ opponents was forced
receive so little attention here (2.626-31), whereas in Life on him by the rival work by Justus of Tiberias (since
it occupies the heart of the work (§§ 189-335), that it Luther 1910). Although that is possible, the extreme
should be presented as the consequence of John’s mas- brevity of War’s account seems enough to explain the
sive loss of followers (which does not happen until Life difference: in giving the entire episode only a couple
372), and that the details of the embassy should be so of paragraphs it is reasonable that Josephus would omit
different in the two works. On all these problems see the names (while still acknowledging that leaders and offi-
introductory essay to Life in BJP 9. cials were involved).
3718 3725
According to Life 189-90, out of hatred John sent See the note to this word at 2.614.
3726
his brother Simon along with one Jonathan son of Sisenna At Life 200 the Jerusalem leaders send a merce-
(a Roman name) and an armed escort of 100 to Simon nary force of 600, led by a Galilean named Jesus, up to
son of Gamaliel, a prominent Pharisee in Jerusalem, to John with the delegation.
book two 411

also voted on their own initiative to recall him from the generalship.3728
628 They certainly did not expect that this directive would be enough: they dispatched Delegation sent
2,500 armed soldiers3729 and four of their eminent men—Ioesdrus son of Nomicus,3730 from Jerusalem
to remove
Ananias Sadouki,3731 and Simon and Ioudas the sons of Ionathes3732—, all very capable in Josephus. Life
speaking,3733 so that they might divert the goodwill enjoyed by Yosep: if he willingly came 199

3727
These proceedings recall the Roman civil wars, group that had sponsored Josephus, which must now
and the Senate’s declaration of Julius Caesar or later have turned against him.
Marc Antony, each a powerful Roman general and gov- In any case, with the names of Simon and Ioudas we
ernor, a public enemy (hostis). meet a substantial conflict with Life 197-98, which iden-
3728
Josephus’ generalship was established at 2.562, tifies the remaining two members of the delegation as
568. Ionathes (Jonathan), a non-priestly Pharisee, and Simon,
3729
Life 199-201 claims that the leaders gave these from a chief-priestly family. Given that Josephus there
four men 40,000 pieces of silver (drachmas, apparently), portrays Jonathan as the head of the delegation, with
a mercenary escort of 600, 300 members of the citizen whom he is in constant interaction, and who tries to
body, and the 100 armed soldiers accompanying John’s harm him on several occasions (Life 199, 216-17, 226,
brother: 1,000 altogether. 228-32, 236, 245-46, 249-52, 254-67, 271-73, 277-89,
3730
The father’s Greek name (“law-related, legal 297-302), it is more than strange that here, in place of
[scholar], lawyer”) occurs only here in Josephus. In the Jonathan, he should instead name two sons of Jonathan.
gospel of Luke (7:30; 10:25; 11:45-52; 14:3; cf. Tit. If we wished to save him by assuming that Jonathan was
3:9, 13) the formulaic plural indicates a group closely another name for Jonathan’s son Judas, we would face
connected with the Pharisees. The son’s Hebrew name, the problem that this Simon cannot be the one in Life
Yoezer, takes the form Yozar (or Ioazar) in Life (29, 197 because that Simon belongs to a different family from
[emended], 324-25, 332); if the same person is in ques- Jonathan’s. Josephus has thus presented this important
tion, Josephus appears to have changed his mind about story from his own career in completely different terms
how best to represent in Greek the name ‫( יועזר‬1 Chron in his two works, leaving us no apparent leverage for
12:6-7 and common among the rabbis; cf. Ilan and Price uncovering the truth.
1993-94: 192). At Life 197 (see discussion in BJP 9), the Ilan and Price (1993-94) propose that the presence
Yoezer named as a member of the delegation is identified in Josephus’ preparatory notes of the common names
as both a priest and a Pharisee. Ananias and Jonathan in both the delegation story and
3731
Possibly “son of Sadok,” a nickname of uncer- the Roman garrison episode at 2.451 led him to conflate
tain meaning, or “the Sadducee.” See the note at 2.451. the two very different episodes, mistakenly transferring
Unless Ilan and Price (1993-94) are correct in proposing the names from 2.451 to this event. Although that solu-
a mistaken transference of names on Josephus’ part, this tion is conceivable, it is difficult to imagine that Josephus
man has already appeared with Ioudas as a prominent would not have remembered such an important complex
member of Eleazar son of Ananias’ faction, which would of events from his war-time career (especially the names
seem to confirm the general picture of hostility between of his chief opponents). Further, the hypothesis does not
Josephus and that group. For the Pharisaic Ananias of deal with the comprehensive differences between War 2
Life, charged with “vile and wretched” activities, see Life and Life in chronology and setting, in which the delega-
290-91; cf. 316, 332. tion episode is pivotal (see Appendix C to BJP 9). The
3732
Ananias and Judas were introduced at 2.451 as problem of incompatible names and identities appears to
two of the three men chosen from the faction of Eleazar be no different (so, not separately solvable) from those
son of Ananias to offer assurances of safe passage to larger difficulties.
3733
the besieged Roman garrison in Jerusalem—just before This notice fits with Josephus’ assumption, visible
those soldiers were slaughtered. Since Josephus does everywhere in his corpus, about statesman’s need to be
not point out this connection, and we discover it only by able to speak convincingly (cf. Plutarch, Mor. [Praec.]
careful comparison, one might take this as incidental evi- 801a-804c): see the note to “as follows” at 2.344. Life
dence that he really was opposed to, and by, the radical 196-98, by contrast, elaborates several items of com-
rebel movement, especially by Eleazar’s faction, whose parison between Josephus and the delegation, which the
members here try to remove him. Alternatively, since Jerusalem leaders think should lead the Galileans to pre-
the Life parallel (§§ 195-98) has the delegation sent by fer the delegation: the four of them (against only one of
Ananus II, Josephus’ own commander, one might suspect him) were at least as accomplished in the laws, and two
that Eleazar’s faction were part of the same leadership of them were priests.
412 book two

with them to render an account3734 they were to allow him, whereas if he used force to
remain they were to treat him as an enemy.3735 629 That an army was in the area, friends
had written to Yosep;3736 but they could not clarify the reason, given that his adversaries
really had conducted their deliberations covertly.3737
Consequently, and since he had taken no precautions,3738 four cities immediately de-
fected to the foes who had come—Sepphoris as well as Gabara, Gischala, and Tiberias.3739
Josephus 630 But even these he [Yosep] quickly brought onside, without weapons. Through the
captures and use of maneuvers3740 he subdued both the four commanders and the most powerful of the
sends back the
delegation. Life armed soldiers, and sent them back to Hierosolyma.3741 631 The populace were extremely
332 indignant3742 at these men, and they rushed to kill them along with those who had sent
them out—except that they outpaced them and ran off.3743
Tiberias defects (21.8) 632 Thereafter, the fear [inspired] by Yosep kept Ioannes under guard within
again. Life 158 Gischala’s wall.3744
After a few days3745 Tiberias defected again, when those inside made an appeal to
Agrippa the king.3746 633 When he did not arrive for the arranged appointment, but a
few Roman cavalry were observed nearby on that same day,3747 they proclaimed Yosep’s

3734 3742
See the note to “give an account” at 2.244. The translation expresses Josephus’ litotes: they
3735
Similarly Life 202: if Josephus put down his “were not moderately indignant.”
3743
weapons, they were to take him alive; if he resisted, they According to Life 332, Josephus, after arresting
were to kill him without qualms. the delegation members, sent them back to Jerusalem
3736
According to Life 204, Josephus’ father passed with travel money and an escort.
3744
along a full report to him, having received the news from This notice corresponds roughly to the situation
none other than Jesus son of Gamalas, one of the two near the end of Life (372), after the failure of the delega-
former high priests leading the war cabinet. In that story tion from Jerusalem (cf. 332), although the episodes that
Josephus’ father also implores him to return home. follow here occur there much earlier (§§ 155-74), before
3737
Life 195-96 also stresses that the deal was secretly the delegation’s arrival from Jerusalem.
3745
arranged, though in that account the truth had reached See the previous note: Life will provide a com-
Josephus via his father (see previous note). pletely different and irreconcilable arrangement of these
3738
This is the only occurrence of προφυλάσσω in episodes.
3746
Josephus. Tiberias was, as far as Roman administration was
3739
A remarkable statement, since this includes the concerned, a territory belonging to Agrippa II (2.252).
two main cities of Galilee and two other important cen- Although it lies within Josephus’ assumed purview as
ters. According to Life 230-35, these delegates met with rebel general, and his rival John has tried to lead the city
massive resistance from the villages of Galilee, whose away (2.573, 599, 614-25), the council here asserts its
indignant residents were steadfastly loyal to Josephus; loyalty to the king and asks for help. The parallel (Life
Sepphoris gives them a hearing, without rejecting Jose- 155-58) adds considerable detail: the Tiberians duplici-
phus (§ 232); only Gabara and Gischala are friendly to tously demand that Josephus fufill his pledge to build
the newcomers, by virtue of their prior allegiance to John their walls, while at the same time they request a garri-
of Gischala (§ 235). Sepphoris’ shifts, at least, should son from King Agrippa to protect them against Josephus.
presumably be understood as pragmatic, since the city’s While he is engaged in this building project, on the third
basic anti-war disposition seems well attested; see the day he makes a trip to nearby Tarichea and is informed
note to “eager for war” at 2.574. en route of the defection. Josephus as author cannot use
3740
On the word, see the note at 2.604. The maneuvers the same scenario here, because he has not pledged to
in question occupy a considerable part of the Life narra- build Tiberias’ walls (cf. 2.608-9), and indeed he gives
tive (§§ 216-332) and so defy quick summarization. the impression that he has already built them (2.573).
3741 3747
This extremely compact statement shows the See the note to this verb at 2.406 (its only other
extent to which Josephus can select and manipulate his appearance in Josephus). This account appears to be a
material, for more than half of Life (189-335) is devoted somewhat cryptic précis of the one elaborated at Life 157.
to Josephus’ dealings with these delegates from Jerusa- There he explains that the appearance of Roman cav-
lem. alry nearby gave the false impression that the requested
book two 413

banishment.3748 634 Their defection3749 was immediately reported3750 at Tarichea,3751 but

since he had sent out all of his soldiers for the collection of grain3752 he was not in a
position either to rush out alone against those who had defected or to remain where he
was—having become anxious that if he delayed, the royal [troops] would outpace him in
reaching the city.3753 He was not going to have [freedom of] activity on the following day
since the sabbath would curtail it.3754
635 But he contrived to overwhelm those who had defected with a ruse. After directing Tiberias
[them] to close up the gates of Tarichea3755 so that no one could announce his scheme3756 regained
by naval
in advance3757 to the objects of the offensive,3758 and after assembling all the boats on the stratagem. Life
lake3759—230 were found,3760 and there were no more than four sailors in each one3761—he 172
traveled* with haste3762 to Tiberias. 636 Having kept far enough away from the city that
it was not easy to detect that the vessels were empty, he directed them to bob around
on the open water,3763 whereas he himself—having only seven of the bodyguards,3764 un-

troops from King Agrippa had arrived, and this embold- sabbath; see the notes at 2.146 (cf. 2.392). Similarly
ened the populace to denounce Josephus and praise their Life 161 (see the notes ad loc. in BJP 9): “Nor, if it [the
benefector the king. force] arrived, could it have taken up weapons into the
3748
Life 158 mentions only an outpouring of praise following day, because the laws prevented us—even if
for the king and slanders against Josephus. some extreme necessity should seem to impose itself.”
3749 3755
See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39. Life 163: Josephus posts his most trusted friends
3750
All MSS read thus, with L clarifying “The defec- at the gates.
3756
tion of these,” but Thackeray follows the corrected MS Josephus uses the noun σκέµµα 4 times, only in
R in changing τῶν to τῷ: “The (or ‘this’) defection was War (cf. 1.486, 500; 4.209). It is rarely attested before his
immediately reported to him at Tarichea.” Pelletier’s time—Plato, Aristotle, Posidonius, and several medical
Greek follows Thackeray, but his translation agrees with writers (the Hippocratic corpus, Hippias, and Diocles)
the one here; M-B agree with the translation here and have it a few times each, usually in the sense of a problem
the text assumed. Since the common MS reading is intel- or object of speculation, but no earlier historians. From
ligible, and preferable as the more difficult one, it seems Josephus’ time it is used much more often (e.g., Plutarch,
the better choice. Mor. [Def. orac.] 412d; [Virt. mor.] 447f; Lucian, Eun.
3751
This is the first we learn of Josephus’ whereabouts 8; Jupp. 17; Herm. 1; dozens of occurrences in Galen).
after 2.619, which left him in the middle of the lake after He seems to be using newly fashionable language.
3757
his escape from Tiberias (see the note there). Accord- The double compound προεξαγγέλλω occurs
ing to Life 157, Josephus was en route to Tarichea from only here in Josephus and is exceedingly rare otherwise
Tiberias. (before Josephus only at Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 248).
3752 3758
This notice, absent from the Life parallel, fits with I.e., the Tiberians.
3759
Josephus’ stronger emphasis here on his excellent gener- Life 163 has Josephus assemble all the heads of
alship; see 2.584 and cf. 2.63 and note to “grain.” households and order each to launch a boat, though it
3753
Life 159-62 offers a much fuller account of these gives no number for the fleet assembled.
3760
deliberations, which in both works serve to highlight his So MSS MLVRC and Latin, against “330” in PA.
impossible situation—so as to throw his clever solution Life 165 merely reports that the Tiberians would see the
into starker relief. There, Josephus has already dimissed lake full of boats.
3761
his soldiers, except for 7, to their homes for the approach- Life 163 has each boat occupied only by the
ing sabbath (no mention of foraging). He was at a loss household head and a helmsman or pilot.
3762
about what to do, since the Friday was nearly over, and See the note to this distinctive phrase in War at
he could not recall his troops even if he had wanted to, 2.18.
3763
since they could not fight on the next day. Nor were the Or “unanchored, suspended” (µετέωρος). Although
Taricheans and their resident aliens a sufficient force to boats would normally come close enough to shore to
take Tiberias, and the delay involved in assembling them secure themselves, he makes a point of keeping them
would likely mean that the royal troops would already out on the deep water so that their contents cannot be
have arrived and prevented his attack anyway. seen.
3754 3764
Josephus implicitly contrasts his lawful behavior This is one of the few small points of agreement
with that of the radical rebels, who freely violate the with the parallel in Life (161, 164), where the rationale is
414 book two

armed3765—approached closely so as to be seen.3766 637 Having at first observed him from

the walls,3767 while continuing to slander him, his foes then because of their terror—once
they supposed that all the ships were full of armed soldiers—discarded their weapons3768
and, while shaking branches of supplication,3769 kept pleading with [him] to spare the
city.3770
(21.9) 638 But Yosep sternly threatened them with violence and roundly scolded them:
first that, after taking up this war against Romans, they were expending their strength
beforehand in internecine factions and doing for their adversaries the things they most
prayed for;3771 then, that they were so keen to get rid of the protector of their security, and
were not ashamed to close their city to the very one who had walled it.3772 He affirmed
that he was [ready to] welcome those who would defend their actions, 3773 and through
whom he might confirm the city’s [loyalty].3774
639 Immediately the ten most powerful of the Tiberians began coming down.3775 After

that Josephus had sent the rest home for sabbath. Here, the preceding verb is different in each case. That these
by contrast, the implied rationale appears to be that the are the only occurrences of the phrase in Josephus sug-
other soldiers were away foraging (2.634). gests that Josephus had some sort of written notes as he
3765
All MSS read ἀνόπλους, as translated. Destinon composed these Tiberian episodes; at least, that he had
conjectures the opposite (ἐνόπλους: “armed”), in light War before him as he wrote Life.
3771
of the Life parallel (§ 164) and the sequel here (War This first topic of censure, absent from the Life
2.642), in which Josephus orders one of these men to cut parallel, fits conspicuously well with War ’s Leitmotif of
off a man’s hand; this conjecture is followed by Thack- civil strife; see the note at 1.10 and more specifically (on
eray, Pelletier, Vitucci, and M-B. But the sequel does doing the Romans’ work for them) 4.366-76; 5.24.
not require that the soldiers were armed (since the guard The adjective εὐκταῖος (here superlative and sub-
might have found a sword with the man himself) and stantivized) is another example of Josephus’ “Philonic”
the Life parallel cannot be trusted to interpret War . The diction. Before Philo it appears mainly in playwrights
unanimous MS reading is the more difficult one, and on (Aeschylus, Ag. 1387; Sept. 723, 841; Suppl. 631; Eurip-
that basis should be accepted; it is also intelligible in the ides, Or. 214; Med. 169; Iph. Taur. 213; Sophocles,
story as Josephus’ effort to highlight his vulnerable and Trach. 239; Aristophanes, Av. 1060; Lycophron, Alex.
brave maneuver. 1091), rarely in philosophers (Plato, Leg. 906b) or his-
3766
In Life 165-67, by contrast, the Tiberians first see torians (Diodorus 11.11.4; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 6.50.1,
the lake full of boats and repent, calling on Josephus for 79.1). But it turns up 8 times in quite different contexts
mercy; only then, after telling the others to drop anchor throughout Philo (Opif. 103; Spec. 2.154; 4.147; Arithm.
in the deeper water, does he take one boat and approach frag. 62a; Legat. 288; Virt. 114, 176; Praem. 136) and
more closely. Here it seems that he offers his own boat, Josephus has it 6 times in different places (also 7.22, 65;
with 7 soldiers as crew, as an example of the rest. Ant. 1.292; 7.165, 249).
3767 3772
This minor scenic detail seems calculated to I.e., Josephus. See 2.573 for the generic claim that
remind the audience that it was Josephus who had built he set about fortifying Tiberias and Tarichea along with
the walls from which his enemies have been slandering other cities in his charge, and 2.606-609 for the seem-
him (2.606); cf. “the one who had walled it” in the next ingly contradictory account of how he came to do this:
sentence. as the unplanned result of a ruse gone awry.
3768 3773
This has become something of a refrain, the In this case ἀπολογέοµαι approximates the Eng-
hallmark of Josephus’ mastery of his enemies without lish cognate “apologize for.”
3774
(much) bloodshed: cf. 2.613, 625. Although the verb βεβαιόω might have to do with
3769
See the note to “supplications” at 2.497. Here securing the city, the issue here seems to be confirming
alone in War , given the accompanying verb of shaking, its relationship with Josephus.
3775
Josephus appears to intend with κατασείοντες ἱκετηρίας According to Life 168, Josephus himself demanded
the literal olive branches used for signaling an appeal for that the citizens produce their 10 foremost men as a con-
mercy. dition of assuaging his anger. The 10 in question, since
3770
The same phrase (φείσασθαι τῆς πόλεως) appears they are the first instalment of the entire council, appear
in the Life parallel (166) and at Life 328, in connection to be Tiberias’ executive subcommittee, mentioned at
with Life’s later (duplicated?) Tiberian revolt, though Life 32-33, 68-69: the δεκάπρωτοι. It seems from Life,
book two 415

he had taken these [men] aboard one of the vessels, he led them quite far off;3776 then he
directed* fifty different [men] to come forward, those who were particularly notable on
the council, as if he wanted to take some pledge of their good faith.3777 640 After that,
inventing ever-newer excuses he kept calling forward others and then others, as if under
articles of agreement.3778 641 He directed the helmsmen of those [boats] that had filled up
to begin sailing off for Tarichea with haste3779 and to confine the men in the jail,3780 until
he had arrested the entire council of 6003781 as well as around 2,000 from the populace3782
and led them off in boats to Tarichea.3783
(21.10) 642 Those who remained kept shouting that the one particularly responsible Cleitus, alleged
for the defection3784 was a certain Cleitus,3785 and kept appealing to [Yosep] that his rage as culprit, loses
hand. Life 170
be fixed on him. Yosep had resolved to kill no one,3786 but he directed a certain Leouis,3787
from his own guards,3788 to go out3789 with the aim of cutting off Cleitus’ hands.3790 643

then, that even Josephus’ closest associates in the city— Further, the man’s convenient Greek name (Κλειτός,
among them the Roman citizen Iulius Capella—had sup- “Mr. Famous, Notorious”), surprising in someone who
ported this move to confirm loyalty to Agrippa II and must be rather low in social status, which appears only
Rome (see the passages cited with notes in BJP 9). here in Josephus and seems not otherwise attested among
3776
Life 168: they are taken to Josephus’ base in Greeks or Judeans (e.g., Horbury and Noy 1992; Noy
Tarichea. 1993, 1995; Solin 1996, 2003), arouses the suspicion
3777
Life 169 compresses this explanation. that Josephus is portraying typical mob activity here for
3778
See the note at 2.397: a favorite term in this part chiefly literary purposes. The masses try to defend them-
of War 2. selves from the likely wrath of an offended general by
3779
See the note at 2.635. identifying a scapegoat (“kept appealing . . . that his rage
3780
See the note at 2.180. be fixed on him”). Life 170 describes Cleitus in clichés
3781
This notice joins with others (cf. Life 64 with as “a bold and reckless youth,” which seems further to
notes in BJP 9) to confirm that Tiberias had the institu- disqualify him from the leading role in Tiberias’ defec-
tions of a Greek city: a large council with a president, a tion and suggests that Josephus is there trying to offer
board of 10, and various magistracies; cf. A. H. M. Jones further reasons for the crowd’s targeting of him. At any
1971: 275-76; Schürer-Vermes 2.179-80. A. H. M. Jones rate, the main function of the episode seems clear from
(1940: 164-65) notes that the central Greek institution its ending (2.644-45): to glorify Josephus’ prowess as a
of the council typically comprised about 500 citizens, general and his ability to instill fear even from afar.
3786
elected by lot, who served for a year. So this was a very Life 171: Josephus considered it impious to kill a
large council for a city of Tiberias’ size. compatriot, but still saw the need of discipline.
3782 3787
Without specifying the size of the council, Life Or “Levis” (Ληουίς); there is considerable varia-
169 reports that Josephus captured its members as well tion among the MSS. See the note at Life 43 in BJP 9.
as an equivalent number (“no fewer”) of the city’s prin- Life 171, parallel to this story, seems to spell the name
cipal men. Ληουείς, though the MS problems make judgments
3783
Josephus has established this city, about an hour’s uncertain.
3788
walk N of Tiberias, as his most congenial base in E Gali- I.e., one of the 7 bodyguards with Josephus in
lee (2.596, 634). his boat (2.636).
3784 3789
See the note to “rebellion” at 2.39. Out of the boat, apparently; see the next sen-
3785
This action of the mob creates problems for tence.
3790
understanding the narrative logic. According to 2.632, Cutting off hands was apparently a common pun-
the Tiberians’ defection consisted in the city’s attempt to ishment in Josephus’ Galilee: in the parallel to War 2.612
realign itself with King Agrippa II (and Rome) against (Life 147) he orders a Tarichean trouble-maker to cut off
Josephus, and he has accordingly punished the residents his left hand and hang it from his neck; at Life 177 he
by removing 2,600 of their leading men, including the reports that the Galileans had severed the hand of Iustus
city’s 600-person council, which must have been respon- of Tiberias’ brother, charging him with forgery. It was an
sible for such a decision about the city’s political loyal- old near-eastern punishment, as the 18th-cent. BCE Code
ties. It defies logic, then, that a single man should be of Hammurabi shows (195: “If a son strikes his father,
the real culprit and, especially, that he should still be they shall cut off his hand”). In biblical law, the cutting
present—not among even the largest conceivable swath off of hands is restricted to a rare and specific offense
of “leading men.” (Deut 25:12, but Exod 21:24). Examples of hand-sev-
416 book two

But that fellow, afraid to go off on his own into a swarm of adversaries, said “No.” Since
Cleitus could see Yosep in the boat fuming about the setback,3791 and very keen to plunge
ahead himself and exact retribution,3792 he started begging, from the shore, that he leave
him one of his hands.3793 644 When he [Yosep] had nodded3794 his assent, on the condi-
tion that he [Cleitus] himself would cut off his own other [hand],3795 he drew his sword
with the right hand and cut off the left one. Such was the degree of fear into which he
had been led by Yosep.
Further 645 Although on that occasion he actually took the populace captive and again led
rebellion in
Tiberias and
Tiberias back to himself—with empty ships and seven spear-bearers!3796—, when he found
Sepphoris after a few days that it had defected again,3797 together with the Sepphorites,3798 he turned it
suppressed. Life over to his soldiers to plunder thoroughly.3799 646 Gathering up [the plunder], nevertheless,
271, 373
he gave it all back to the citizens, likewise to those in Sepphoris.3800 For having subdued

ering post mortem, for symbolic reasons (War 3.378; sentence, the comment about empty ships at 2.645, and
cf. 2 Sam 4:12), or in the heat of battle (War 3.527; the parallel at Life 174: the Tiberians finally realized that
cf. Herodotus 6.91.2, 114.1; Xenophon, Cyr. 7.47), are he had employed “generalship” against them, and they
more common. were awestruck.
3791 3796
Josephus’ choice of the relatively rare verb See note to this word at 2.262.
3797
σχετλιάζω (cf. 5.325; 7.341; Ant. 5.170) must be delib- This renewed defection “after a few days” lacks
erate, perhaps to leave open the possibility that Cleitus a parallel in Life. There is a further major revolt, engi-
mistook one emotion for another (see next note). neered by the delegation from Jerusalem with the aid of
3792
The construction leaves it an open question John and Justus (Life 271-335), but they have already
whether what Cleitus saw represented the reality, or been dispensed with here in War (2.632). See the fol-
whether his accurate perception of Josephus’ animated lowing notes.
3798
frustration over the soldier’s refusal was misread as an The parallel at Life 373-80 (like the final Tiberian
impression that Josephus himself would come and do the revolt there, impossible to reconcile with War ’s chronol-
job—a prospect for which Josephus provides no other ogy) has the Sepphorites, who consistently opt for loyalty
evidence, and which works against his insistence that toward Rome and Agrippa II (Life 30, 124), requesting
the whole matter was settled by deception; hence the a Roman garrison from Syria to protect them from the
stipulation that Cleitus himself remove his hand. rebellion and its regional leader Josephus (Life 373).
3793
Life 172 rather has this remarkable story: attempt- Josephus there describes his taking Sepphoris by storm
ing to shield the cowardice of his own soldier from the with a Galilean force, which then shows its long-stand-
Tiberian crowd assembled on the shore, Josephus calls ing hatred for the city by burning and looting it (375-77).
out to Cleitus and demands that he cut off both of his When Josephus is unable to restrain them, he decides to
own hands, lest he suffer a worse punishment (even spread the rumor that the Roman force is nearby, which
though the soldier had been initially instructed to remove prompts them to flee quickly, leaving behind the plunder
only one of the man’s hands). When Cleitus begs for they had taken (378-80); and so Sepphoris was spared
mercy, Josephus can now magnanimously leave him the (!) by Josephus’ generalship.
3799
right hand; he need only sever the left. Here by contrast, At Life 333-35 (the closest parallel), the rheto-
terrified that Josephus will personally come and remove ric is different. There Josephus’ soldiers have plundered
both hands, the man obviates any such command by the city without command (as was to be expected of
anticipating Josephus and begging to keep one. soldiers). When the weary populace pledges loyalty to
3794
Or “gestured”; see the note to “gesture” at him, however, they beg Josephus to return whatever can
2.498. be recovered from this plunder. He orders his soldiers
3795
The underlying point of this entire ruse appears to bring everything out into the open so that it can be
to be that Josephus was in no position—as his reluctant returned. They generally fail to comply, though he gives
soldier made clear—to go ashore in Tiberias and exact an example of his own virtue: when he saw a soldier
any sort of retribution, even to chop off this man’s hands. wearing an expensive coat, taken from the plunder, he
He offers it as a sign of great generalship that he was ordered him and anyone in the same situation to return
able to intimidate thousands of Tiberians nonetheless this property.
3800
by his clever manipulation of impressions. Cf. the next See the note to “Sepphorites” at 2.645.
book two 417

them also, he wanted through the act of plundering to admonish them, and then by the
return of their goods to attract their goodwill to himself again.3801
(22.1) 647 So the commotions in Galilee had now been brought to an end. Having
ended their internecine disorders,3802 they turned their attention to preparations against
the Romans.
648 In Hierosolyma, Ananus the high priest3803 and also those of the powerful [men]3804 Ananus
who were not wise concerning the Romans3805 were readying the wall and many of the prepares
Jerusalem for
war engines.3806 649 Throughout the entire city, while arrows3807 and full armor were be- war
ing forged, the mass of the youth were in irregular exercises,3808 and everything was full

3801
This deliberate plan is impossible in the closest camouflage his own activities as general. In both cases
Life parallel (333-35), since the plundering had happened he praises the skillful execution of military plans under
spontaneously; see the notes to “thoroughly plunder” and élite Judean leadership. Further, trying to locate each
“Sepphorites” at 2.645. leader in either a “pro-” or “anti-Roman” camp does
3802
See note to this word at 1.4. not accord well with ancient discussions of responses
3803
See the note to this important figure at 2.563. to Roman rule. Polybius’ master text (see Introduction)
3804
See the note at 2.239: one of Josephus’ several charts a range of responses that combine some degree of
terms for the élite class. resistance with a realistic accommodation to “the circum-
3805
Possibly “those who were not devoted to the stances” or “necessity.” E.g., the Epirot Cephalus at the
Romans.” Greek [τῶν δύνατων] ὅσοι µὴ τὰ Ῥωµαίων time of the Third Macedonian War (Polybius 15.10-16),
ἐφρόνουν may be read in two senses. Generally, this although his preferred policy reportedly involved limited
construction of the verb with τὰ + genitive of X indi- cooperation with Rome while praying that war would
cates “being wise concerning matters of X” (LSJ, s.v. never come, was compelled by circumstances to join the
I.1). Translators of Josephus tend, however, to read it ill-fated King Perseus against Rome.
as if the verb were completed with a dative of interest, As Josephus’ contemporaries Plutarch and Dio also
perhaps under the influence of ῥωµαΐζω in 2.562 above indicate, it was rarely a matter of leaders being simply
(see the note there), to indicate those who were not par- pro- or anti-Roman. Against that background, Josephus’
tisans of Rome (so Thackeray in LCL, “pro-Romans”; Ananus appears as a familiar type: caught in a time of
M-B, “römisch gesinnt”; Pelletier, “pour les Romains”). crisis and trying to manage conditions in the safest way
A further question is whether we should understand the possible. In view of popular sentiment, Ananus has little
group in question as Ananus’ own constituency (thus: he choice but to prepare for war. Josephus’ τε . . . καί con-
and his group were not wise concerning Rome, or pro- struction thus invites a distinction between Ananus and
Romans) or whether the τε . . . καί construction implies the others: this man, who was indeed wise about the
a distinction between his personal aims and the views of Romans and foresaw the outcome (2.651; 4.320-24), was
others he led. Complicating both interpretations are the of necessity allied with compatriots who did not grasp
next three sentences (2.649-51), in which the narrator’s the situation. (I am speaking of understanding the story,
value judgments appear to come forward: “the respect- not of the underlying historical reality.)
3806
able” people, or “lovers of peace,” are greatly distressed See the notes to 2.546 for the ballistae and cata-
by the activities of those, led by Ananus, who are prepar- pultae in question. It is noteworthy that Josephus men-
ing for war. But in the third sentence (2.651), Ananus tions these along with the existing wall as items being
is described as hoping to steer the masses away from made ready, refitted, or repaired (ἐπισκευάζω, not con-
war—a point elaborated in his eulogy at 4.320-24. structed), in contrast to the arrowheads and armor being
Scholars have often understood the present remark forged (next sentence). This might suggest that the for-
as Josephus’ unintentional admission that Ananus cham- mer group were among the artillery engines captured
pioned the rebel or anti-Roman cause (over against the from Cestius’ legionary army (2.553).
3807
“moderates” or peace party); they regard Josephus’ See the note to “projectiles” at 2.48.
3808
claims about the former high priest’s real intentions as The precise nuance of the phrase πρὸς ἀτάκτοις
obfuscations aimed at concealing the role of the ruling δὲ γυµνασίαις is unclear: on the one hand, Josephus
class in prosecuting the conflict (Cohen 1979: 183-86; emphasizes Ananus’ coordinated preparations for war;
Goodman 1987: 167; Price 1992: 188 n. 13). Yet Jose- on the other hand, the disorder or clamor in the city. See
phus does not attempt to disguise Ananus’ preparations the note to “disarray” at 2.517. The adjective ἄτακτος
for war, either here or in the obituary, just as he does not (or cognate adverb) occurs near θόρυβος, as here, at War
418 book two

of clamor.3809 The despondency of the reasonable [folk]3810 was terrible: many could see
in advance, and loudly bewailed, the calamities3811 that were about to occur. 650 Divine
omens3812 were full of foreboding3813 among the lovers of peace,3814 but among those who
had kindled the war3815 they were being improvised at their pleasure,3816 and the condition
of the city before the Romans’ attacking was that of [a place] about to be completely
destroyed. 651 Ananus nonetheless had the intention of bending the insurgents3817 and the
recklessness of the so-called Zealots to the more advantageous3818 course, as he gradually
sidelined the preparations for war; but he succumbed to the violence. In what follows we
shall detail the sort of end that befell him.3819
Simon son of (22.2) 652 In the Acrabatene toparchy3820 Simon son of Gioras3821 united many of those
Gioras ravages who were revolutionaries3822 and turned to plunder.3823 Not only did he tear down3824 the
Acrabatene,
Idumea houses of the rich;3825 he also badly maltreated3826 their bodies: it was already clear at this

4.231; 6.255. Granted the basic sense of lacking order, 5.13), who not only relates the disagreement about the
the sense here could range from “lazy, indolent, undisci- predicted ruler from the East but also observes that “the
plined,” perhaps befitting the youth in question (who may common people, as is the way of human ambition, inter-
have caused havoc in the city with their slight military preted such grand destinies for their own favor” (sibi
training, but without an accompanying discipline) to a tantam fatorum magnitudinem interpretati).
3817
more neutral “irregular,” describing the kind of force (in See the note to this key word at 1.10.
3818
contrast to such highly trained standing armies as the Greek κάµψαι πρὸς τὸ συµφέρον. This is clas-
legions and auxiliaries). sic statesman-language; see the note to “advantage” in
3809
Elsewhere translated “disorder,” though that does Agrippa’s speech at 2.346. According to Plutarch (Mor.
not seem to have the right nuance here, since Josephus [Praec.] 800d-e), the statesman’s task is to win the trust
appears to respect Ananus’ orderly preparation for war of the people and then to train their character, “leading
(cf. also 4.320-24). See the note to “disorder,” a key them gently toward the better course (πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον)”;
word in War , at 1.4. cf. 815b.
3810 3819
See the note at 2.275. As often, Josephus creates suspense. Ananus’
3811
This is another programmatic term (συµφορά) in murder will not be recounted until 4.314-25, which pro-
War and in bk. 2; see the notes at 1.9; 2.286. This is the vides the narrative fulcrum at approximately War ’s half-
last of 18 occurrences in bk. 2 alone. way point (by book).
3812 3820
Or “acts of divination,” “superstitions,” “inspired On the border of Judea proper and Samaria; see
events.” Greek θειασµός occurs only here and at 2.259 the note at 2.235.
3821
in Josephus. Simon has been briefly introduced as a leader of
3813
The adjective δύσφηµος, quite rare before Jose- those who attacked Cestius’ forces on their approach to
phus (e.g., Euripides, Andr. 1144; Apollonius of Rho- Jerusalem (2.521; see the note there). He will become
des, Arg. 1.1137; Strabo 3.2.12), occurs only here in a principal leader of the revolt, known also to Tacitus
his corpus. (Hist. 5.12), from the middle of bk. 4.
3814 3822
See the note to this distinctive phrase at 2.422. See the note at 2.407.
3815 3823
See the note to this Josephan phrase at 2.420. For the type of man and the plunder motive, see
3816
Or “as they pleased, to please themselves” (πρὸς 2.57.
3824
ἡδονήν). This notice evidently anticipates the same Reading ἐσπάρασσεν with MSS VRC and Niese,
phrase at 6.315 (somewhat symmetrically), which con- Thackeray, Pelletier, and M-B. Although the important
cludes a list of 7 signs (τέρατα, σηµεῖα) and two oracles MSS PAML (and Latin) support ἐτάρασσεν (“disturbed,
(6.288-314) that were either disdained by the rebels or upset [the houses of the rich]”), the close parallel at
interpreted as they wished. Josephus offers examples 1.338 to the construction translated speaks in its favor.
3825
there: when a temple gate opened spontaneously, some For an earlier attack on the houses of the wealthy
understood it as God’s opening of the gate of blessings, élite, see 2.265.
3826
whereas the learned recognized a bad omen (6.293-95); Although the simple verb αἰκίζω is common
an oracle indicated that someone from Judea would rule enough in Josephus, the emphatic compound καταικίζω
the world, predicting Vespasian’s rise, whereas the rebels occurs only here in his corpus and is otherwise rare (e.g.,
(implausibly) took it as encouragment (6.312-13). That Homer, Od. 16.290; 19.9; Herodas, Mim. 5.12; Diodo-
passage in turn finds a striking parallel in Tacitus (Hist. rus 18.47.3; 20.54.7; Dionysius, Ant. rom. 3.73.4; Philo,
book two 419

remoteness that he was beginning to exercise tyranny.3827 653 When an army was sent
against him by Ananus and the leaders, he fled to the bandits on Masada,3828 with whom
he had connections. There, until the removal of Ananus and of his other adversaries,3829 he
joined in pillaging3830 Idumea, 654 with the result that the leaders of this nation, because
of the mass of those being murdered and the continual raids, assembled an army to have
the villages garrisoned. Such were the [affairs] in Idumea in those [times].

Jos. 22; 4 Macc 6:3; 11:1; 12:13; Plutarch, Mor. [Cons. Eleazar ben Ya‘ir, who went there just before Manaem’s
Apoll.] 117f). capture and murder in Jerusalem (2.447-48).
3827 3829
Josephus’ association of Simon with the tyranny Ananus is killed at 4.314-25; others follow soon
anticipated in the prologue (1.10; see note there) will (4.326-44, 357-65). Simon is mentioned again at 4.353,
now become routine: 4.564, 573; 5.11, 169; 6.227, 326; but fully reintroduced at 4.503-4, in preparation for his
7.32, 265. methodical assault upon Jerusalem, and entry into the
3828
See 2.408, 433, 447 with notes. The “bandits” who city as tyrant (4.503-44, 556-84).
3830
have recently gone to Masada include the tyrant Manaem, The verb συλληίζομαι seems to be attested only
to arm himself for conflicts in Jerusalem (2.433-34), and here in all Greek literature before the 12th century.
his followers, among them the future tyrant of Masada,
420 book two
bibliography 421

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aberbach, M. (1949-50). “The Conflicting Accounts of Josephus and Tacitus concerning Cumanus’ and Felix’ Terms
of Office.” JQR 40: 1-14.
Adam, A. (1972). Antike Berichte über die Essener, 2nd. edn. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Adams, C. E. P. and R. Laurence, eds. (2001). Travel and Geography in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge.
Ahl, F. (1984). “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome.” AJP 105: 174-208.
Aicher, P. J. (1995). Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci.
Aitken, E. B. and J. K. B. Maclean. (2001). Heroikos. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Aitken, E. B. and J. K. B. Maclean. (2004). Philostratus’s Heroikos: religion and cultural identity in the third century
C.E. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Aldrete, G. S. (1999). Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aldrete, G. S. and D. J. Mattingly (1999). “Feeding the City: the Organization, Operation, and Scale of the Supply
System for Rome.” Pp. 171-204 in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, ed. D. S. Potter and D.
J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Alföldy, G. (1988). The Social History of Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Alföldy, G. (1999). “Pontius Pilatus und das Tiberieum von Caesarea Maritima.” Scripta Classica Israelica 18:
85-108.
Alon, G. (1977). Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Alpers, M. (1995). Das nachrepublikanische Finanzsystem: Fiscus und Fisci in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Alston, R. (1997). “Philo’s In Flaccum: ethnicity and social space in Roman Alexandria.” Greece & Rome 44:
165-175.
Anderson, G. (1993). The Second Sophistic: a cultural phenomenon in the Roman empire. London: Routledge.
Ando, C. (2000). Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ando, C. (2006). “The Administration of the Provinces.” Pp. 177-92 in The Blackwell Companion to the Roman
Empire, ed. David S. Potter. Oxford: Blackwell.
Andreau, J. (1999). Banking and Business in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Applebaum, S. (1990). “The Roman Colony of Ptolemais-Akko.” Pp. 135-40 in Yavan ve-Roma be-Eretz-Yisrael:
kovetz mekharim ha-‘orkhim [Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel]. A. Kasher, G. Fuks and U. Rappaport. Jerusalem:
Yitzhak ben Tzvi; Israel Exploration Society.
Arav, R. and R. A. Freund, eds. (1995). Bethsaida: a city by the north shore of the Sea of Galilee. Bethsaida Exca-
vations Project 1. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press.
Attridge, H. W. (1976). The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus.
Missoula: Scholars Press.
Aviam, M. (2002). “Yodefat/Jotapata: The Archaeology of the First Battle.” Pp. 121-33 in The First Jewish Revolt:
Archaeology, History, Ideology, ed. A. Berlin and J. A. Overman. London: Routledge.
Aviam, M. (2004). Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee, 25 Years of Archaeological Excavations and Surveys:
Hellenistic to Byzantine periods. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Avigad, N. (1983). Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: T. Nelson.
Badian, E. (1972). Publicans and Sinners: private enterprise in the service of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Black-
well.
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. (1934). The Emperor Gaius (Caligula). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. (1979). Romans and Aliens. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Barclay, J. M. G. (1996). Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE). Ed-
inburgh: T & T Clark.
Bar-Kochva, B. (1976). “Seron and Cestius at Beith Horon.” PEQ 108: 13-21.
Barrett, A. A. (1977). “Gaius’ Policy in the Bosporus.” TAPA 107: 1-9.
Barrett, A. A. (1989). Caligula: The Corruption of Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Barrett, A. A. (1996). Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Barrett, A. A. (2002). Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press.
422 bibliography

Barzanò, A. “Tiberio Giulio Alessandro, Prefetto d’Egitto (66/70).” ANRW 1988 2.10.1: 518-580.
Bastomsky, S. J. (1969). “The Emperor Nero in Talmudic Legend.” JQR 59: 321-25.
Baumgarten, A. I. (1984). “Josephus and Hippolytus on the Pharisees.” HUCA 55: 1-25.
Baumgarten, A. I. (1996). “The Temple Scroll, Toilet Practices, and the Essenes.” Jewish History 10: 9-20.
Baumgarten, A. I. (1997). The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: an interpretation. Leiden:
Brill.
Baumgarten, J. M. (1967). “The Essene Avoidance of Oil and the Laws of Purity.” RevQ 6: 183-192.
Beall, T. S. (1988). Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Beard, M., J. North, and S. R. F. Price. (1998). Religions of Rome, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Beck, M. C. (1999). Plato’s Self-corrective Development of the Concepts of Soul, Forms and Immortality in Three
Arguments of the Phaedo. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.
Bederman, D. J. (2001). International Law in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beebe, H. K. (1983). “Caesarea Maritima: its strategic and political importance to Rome.” JNES 42: 195-207.
Bell, H. I. (1941). “Anti-Semitism in Alexandria.” JRS 31: 1-18.
Bellemore, J. (1984). Nicolaus of Damascus: life of Augustus. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
Bergmeier, R. (1993). Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten im Werk des
jüdischen Historiographen. Kampen: Kok Pharos.
Bergmeier, R. (1998). “Die Leute aus Essa.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 113: 75-87.
Berlin, A. M. (1992). “Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Preliminary Report, 1990.” Pp. 112-28 in Caesarea Papers:
Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, ed. R. L. Vann. Ann Arbor: Journal of
Roman Archaeology.
Berlin, A. M. (2002). “Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee.” Pp. 57-73 in The First Jewish
Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman. London: Routledge.
Berlin, A. M. (2005). “Jewish life before the Revolt: the archeological evidence.” JSJ 36: 417-470.
Berlin, A. M. and J. A. Overman (2002). The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. London:
Routledge.
Bernett, M. (2007). Der Kaiserkult in Judäa unter den Herodiern und Römern. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Bickerman, E. J. (1947). “Syria and Cilicia.” AJP 68: 353-362.
Bickerman, E. J. (1980). Chronology of the Ancient World, revised edn. London: Thames and Hudson.
Birley, A. R. (1999). Tacitus: Agricola and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bishop, M. C., and J. C. Coulston. (2003). Roman Military Equipment: from the Punic Wars to the fall of Rome.
London: Batsford.
Bishop, M. C., and J. C. Coulston. (2006). Roman Military Equipment: from the Punic Wars to the fall of Rome,
2nd edn. Oxford: Oxbow.
Black, M. (1956). “The Account of the Essenes in Hippolytus and Josephus.” Pp. 172-75 in The Background of the
New Testament and its Eschatology: studies in honour of C. H. Dodd, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Black, M. (1961). The Scrolls and Christian Origins: studies in the Jewish background of the New Testament. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Black, M. (1974). “Judas of Galilee and Josephus’s ‘Fourth Philosophy’.” Pp. 45-54 in Josephus-Studien: Untersuc-
hungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet,
ed. O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Blenkinsopp, J. (1974). “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus.” JJS 25: 239-62.
Boardman, J. (1998). Early Greek Vase Painting: 11th-6th centuries BC: a handbook. London: Thames and Hud-
son.
Boffo, L. (1994). Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia. Brescia: Paideia.
Bond, H. K. (1998). Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowersock, G. W. (1983). Roman Arabia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bowersock, G. W. (1984). “The Miracle of Memnon.” BASP 21: 21-32.
Bowersock, G. W. (1995). Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, K. R. (1978). “The Chronology of Nero’s Visit to Greece A.D. 66/67.” Latomus 37: 61-72.
Bradley, K. R. (1989). Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140-70 BC. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
bibliography 423

Bradley, K. R. (1994). Slavery and Society at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braun, M. (1934). Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtschreibung. Frankfurt am Main: V. Kloster-
mann.
Braund, D. (1984). Rome and the Friendly King: the character of the client kingship. London: Croom Helm.
Braund, D. (1994). Georgia in Antiquity: a history of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Breeze, D. (1969). “The Organization of the Legion: the first cohort and the equites legionis.” JRS 59: 50-55.
Brenk, F. E. (2001). “The ‘Notorious’ Felix, Procurator of Judaea, and His Many Wives (Acts 23–24).” Biblica 82:
410-417.
Brighton, M. (2005). “The Sicarii in Josephus’ Judean War.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Classics, University of
California, Irvine, 2005.
Brinton, C. (1952). The Anatomy of Revolution. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Broshi, M. (1978). “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem.” BAR 4: 10-15.
Broshi, M. (1979). “The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period.” BASOR 236: 1-10.
Browning, I. (1982). Jerash and the Decapolis. London: Chatto & Windus.
Brunt, P. A. (1983). “Princeps and Equites.” JRS 73: 42-75.
Brunt, P. A. (1990). Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Burchard, C. (1977). “Die Essener bei Hippolyt: Hippolyt, Ref. IX 18, 2-28, 2 und Josephus, Bell. 2, 119-161.”
JSJ 8: 1-41.
Butcher, K. (2003). Roman Syria and the Near East. London: British Museum.
Caes, C. (1985). Beyond Time: ideas of the great philosophers on eternal existence and immortality. Lanham: Uni-
versity Press of America.
Campbell, J. B. (2002). War and Society in Imperial Rome, 31 BC-AD 284. London: Routledge.
Cantarella, E. (1991). I supplizi capitali in Grecia e a Roma: origini e funzioni della pena di morte nell’antichità
classica. Milan: Rizzoli.
Carroll, K. K. (1979). “The Date of Boudicca’s Revolt.” Britannia 10: 197-202.
Cartledge, P. (1987). Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Casali, S. (1995-96). “Aeneas and the Doors of the Temple of Apollo.” CJ 91: 1-9.
Casson, L. (1959). The Ancient Mariners: seafarers and sea fighters of the Mediterranean in ancient times. London:
V. Gollancz.
Casson, L. (1994). Travel in the Ancient World. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cavallin, H. C. C. (1974). Life After Death: Paul’s argument for the resurrection of the dead in I Cor. 15. Vol. 1:
an enquiry into the Jewish background. Lund: Gleerup.
Champlin, E. (2003). Nero. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Chancey, M. A. (2002). The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chancey, M. A. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Chapman, H. H. (1998). Spectacle and Theater in Josephus’s Bellum Judaicum. Stanford: Ph.D. dissertation, Dept.
Of Classics, Stanford University.
Chapman, H. H. (2005). “Spectacle in Josephus’ Jewish War.” Pp. 289-313 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome,
ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason and J. Rives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chilver, G. E. F. (1979). A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories I and II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Clarke, K. (1999). Between Geography and History: Hellenistic constructions of the Roman world. Oxford: Clar-
endon Press.
Cloud, J. D. (1969). “The Primary Purpose of the Lex Cornelia De Sicariis.” Zeitschrift fur Religion und Geschichte
86: 258-86.
Coggins, R. J. (1975). Samaritans and Jews: the origins of Samaritanism reconsidered. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cohen, S. J. D. (1979). Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and development as a historian. Leiden: Brill.
Cohen, S. J. D. (1982). “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius.” History and Theory 21: 366-381.
Cohen, S. J. D. (1982). “Masada: literary tradition, archaeological remains, and the credibility of Josephus.” JJS
33: 385-405.
Cohen, S. J. D. (1987). From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Cohen, S. J. D. (1994). “Ioudaios to genos and Related Expressions in Josephus.” Pp. 23-28 in Josephus and the
History of the Greco-Roman Period, ed. J. Sievers and F. Parente. Leiden: Brill.
Colautti, F. M. (2002). Passover in the Works of Josephus. Leiden: Brill.
424 bibliography

Collingwood, R. G. and J. N. L. Myres (1990) [1937]. Roman Britain and the English Settlements. New York: Biblio
and Tannen.
Collins, J. J. (1985). “A Symbol of Otherness: circumcision and salvation in the first century.” Pp. 163-86 in “To See
Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs.
Chico: Scholars Press.
Cotton, H. M. (1999). “Some Aspects of the Roman Administration of Judaea / Syria-Palaestina.” Pp. 75-91 in
Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen: Kolloquien des historischen
Kollegs, ed. W. Eck. Munich: R. Oldenbourg.
Coulston, J. C. N. (2000). “‘Armed and Belted Men’: the soldiery in imperial Rome.” Pp. 76-118 in Ancient Rome:
the archaeology of the eternal city, ed. J. C. N. Coulston and H. Dodge. Oxford: Oxford University School of
Archaeology.
Coulston, J. C. N. and H. Dodge, eds. (2000). Ancient Rome: the archaeology of the eternal city. Oxford: Oxford
University School of Archaeology.
Coulter, C. C. (1931). “Caesar’s Clemency.” CJ 26: 513-24.
Courcelle, P. (1965). “Tradition platonicienne et traditions chrétiennes du corps-prison (Phaedon 62b; Cratyle 400c).”
Revue des études latines 43: 406-443.
Cribiore, R. (2001). Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Crook, J. A. (1955). Consilium Principis: imperial councils and counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Croom, A. (2000). Roman Clothing and Fashion. Charleston: Tempus.
Cross, F. M. (1961). The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. New York: Doubleday & Com-
pany.
Cumont, F. V. M. (1922). After Life in Roman Paganism: lectures delivered at Yale University on the Silliman Foun-
dation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cunliffe, B. W. (1997). The Ancient Celts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dabrowa, E. (1986). The Frontier in Syria in the First Century A.D. The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East.
P. W. M. Freeman and D. L. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 93-108.
Dabrowa, E. (1993). Legio X Fretensis: a prosopographical study of its offi cers (I-III c. A.D.). Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner.
Dabrowa, E. (1996). “The Commanders of Syrian Legions, 1st-3rd c. A.D.” Pp. 277-96 in The Roman Army in the
East, ed. D. L. Kennedy. Ann Arbor: The Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Dalby, A. (2000). Empire of Pleasures: luxury and indulgence in the Roman world. London: Routledge.
Debevoise, N. C. (1938). A Political History of Parthia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Degrassi, A. (1952). I fasti consolari dell’impero Romano dal 30 avanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo. Rome: Edizioni
di storia e letteratura.
Deines, R. (2003). “Josephus, Salomo und die von Gott verliehene tekhne gegen die Dämonen.” Die Dämonen:
die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt = Demons:
the demonology of Israelite-Jewish and early Christian literature in context of their environment. A. Lange,
H. Lichtenberger and K. F. D. Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck: 365-394.
Delia, D. (1988). “The Population of Roman Alexandria.” TAPA 118: 275-92.
Delia, D. (1991). Alexandrian Citizenship During the Roman Principate. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Dilke, O. A. W. (1998). Greek and Roman Maps. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dixon, K. R. and P. Southern (1992). The Roman Cavalry: from the fi rst to the third century AD. London: Bats-
ford.
Dixon, W. H. The Holy Land. 4th edn. London: Chapman and Hall, 1869.
Dodge, H. (1999). “Amusing the Masses: Buildings for Entertainment and Leisure in the Roman World.” Pp. 205-55
in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, ed. D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor: Uni-
versity of Michigan Press.
Dodge, H. (2000). “‘Greater than the Pyramids’: the Water Supply of Ancient Rome.” Pp. 166-209 in Ancient
Rome: the Archaeology of the Eternal City, ed. J. Coulston and H. Dodge. Oxford: Oxford University School
of Archaeology.
Domaszewski, A. von (1892). “Die Dislocation des römischen Heeres im Jahre 66 n. Chr. (Iosephus bell. Iud. 2,
16, 4.).” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 47: 207-218.
bibliography 425

Domergue, C. (1987). Catalogue des mines et des fonderies antiques de la Péninsule Ibérique. 2 vols. Paris: de
Boccard.
Domergue, C. (1990). Les mines de la Péninsule Ibérique dans l’Antiquité romaine. Rome: École française de
Rome.
Donfried, K. P. and P. Richardson. (1998). Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans.
Döring, K. (1978). “Antike Theorien über die staatspolitische Notwendigkeit der Götterfurcht.” Antike und Abend-
land 24: 43-56.
Dover, K. J. (1989). Greek Homosexuality, revised edn. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Drews, R. (1969). “Aethiopian Memnon, African or Asiatic?” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 112: 191-192.
Drexler, H. (1925). “Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des jüdischen Aufstandes.” Klio 19:
277-312.
Dupont-Sommer, A. (1952). The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Preliminary Survey. Oxford: Blackwell.
Duttlinger, R. (1911). Untersuchungen über den historischen Wert des Bios Kaisaros des Nicolaus Damascenus.
Zürich: Leemann.
Earl, D. C. (1967). The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome. London: Thames and Hudson.
Eck, W. (2003). The Age of Augustus. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckstein, A. M. (1990). “Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration.” Classical Antiquity 9: 175-208.
Eckstein, A. M. (1995). Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eckstein, A. M. (2006). Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Edmondson, J., S. Mason, and J. Rives, eds. (2005). Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Edwards, D. R. and C. T. McCollough (1997). Archaeology and the Galilee: texts and contexts in the Graeco-Roman
and Byzantine periods. Atlanta: Scholars.
Egger, R. (1986). Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner: eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitätsklärung
der Samaritaner. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Elledge, C. D. (2006). Life after Death in Early Judaism: the evidence of Josephus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Engle, A. (1973). Readings in Glass History, No. 1. Jerusalem: Phoenix.
Engle, A. (1978). Ancient Glass in its Context. Jerusalem: Phoenix.
Engle, A. (1980). The Sidonian Glassmakers and their Market. Jerusalem: Phoenix.
Engle, A. (1983). The proto-Sidonians: glassmakers and potters. Jerusalem: Phoenix.
Engle, A. (1984). 1,000 years of Glassmaking in Ancient Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Phoenix.
Erdkamp, P. (2005). The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: a social, political and economic study. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Étienne, S. (2000). “Réflexion sur l’aspostasie de Tibérius Julius Alexander. “SPhilo 12: 122-42.
Eyben, E. (1993). Restless Youth in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge.
Farmer, W. R. (1957-1958). “Judas, Simon and Athronges.” NTS 4: 147-155.
Farmer, W. R. (1973) [1956]. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: an inquiry into Jewish nationalism in the Greco-
Roman period. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Faulkner, N. (2004). Apocalypse: the great Jewish revolt against Rome AD 66-73. Stroud: Tempus.
Feldman, L. H. (1984). Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980). Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Feldman, L. H. (1990). “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus.” JTS 41: 386-422.
Feldman, L. H. (1993). Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: attitudes and interactions from Alexander to Justinian.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ferguson, J. (1975). Utopias of the Classical World. London: Thames and Hudson.
Feugère, M. (2002). Weapons of the Romans. Stroud: Tempus.
Filow, B. (1906). Die Legionen der Provinz Moesia von Augustus bis auf Diokletian. Leipzig: Theodor Weicher.
Fine, S., ed. (1996). Sacred Realm: the emergence of the synagogue in the ancient world. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Finley, M. I. (1960). Slavery in Classical Antiquity: views and controversies. Cambridge: Heffer.
Firpo, G. (1997). “La terminologia della resistenza giudaica antiromana in Giuseppe Flavio.” Rendiconti della Classe
di Scienze morali, storiche e fi lologiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei ser. 9a 8 (4): 675-714.
Frank, T. (1927). An Economic History of Rome. 2nd. edn. London: J. Cape.
Frank, T. “Augustus and the Aerarium.” JRS 23 (1933): 143-48.
426 bibliography

Fraser, P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.

Freyne, S. (1980). Galilee, from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.: a study of Second Temple
Judaism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Freyne, S. (1988). Galilee, Jesus, and the Gospels: literary approaches and historical investigations. Philadelphia:
Fortress.
Freyne, S. (2002). Galilee and Gospel: collected essays. Boston: Brill.
Freyne, S. (2004). Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: a new reading of the Jesus story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Frier, B. W. (1998). “Roman Demography.” Pp. 85-109 in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, ed.
D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Frova, A. (1961). “L’iscrizione di Ponzio Pilato a Cesarea.” Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo (Accademia di Scienze e
Lettere) 95: 419-434.
Gabba, E. (1976-1977). “L’impero romano nel discorso di Agrippa II (Ioseph., B.I., II, 345-401).” Rivista Storica
dell’Antichità 6-7: 189-194. ET 2007 by T. Leoni at http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/York/york/studies-ext.htm (2007).
Galimberti, A. (2001). I Giulio-Claudi in Flavio Giuseppe (AI XVIII-XX): introduzione, traduzione e commento.
Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
Gallivan, P. A. (1973). “The False Neros: A Re-Examination.” Historia 22: 364-65.
Gallivan, P. A. (1981). “The Fasti for A. D. 70-96.” CQ 31: 186-220.
García Martínez, G. (1996). The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: the Qumran texts in English. Leiden; Grand Rapids:
E. J. Brill; Eerdmans.
Garnsey, P. (1968). “Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire.” Past and Present 41: 3-24.
Garnsey, P. (1999). Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garnsey, P. and R. Saller (1987). The Roman Empire: economy, society and culture. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Garrity, T. (1998). “Thucydides 1.22.1: Content and Form in the Speeches.” AJP 119: 361-84.
Garzetti, A. (1966). “L. Cesennio Peto e la rivalutazione flaviana di personaggi neroniani.” Pp. 777-90 in Mélanges
d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à A. Piganiol, ed. R. Chevallier. Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études
en sciences sociales.
Gerlach, E. (1863). Die Weissagungen des alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus. Berlin: Hertz.
Ghiretti, M. (1985). “Lo ‘status’ della Giudea dall’età augustea all’età claudia.” Latomus 44: 751-766.
Gichon, M. (1981). “Cestius Gallus’s Campaign in Judaea.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 113: 39-62.
Gilliver, C. (1999). The Roman Art of War. Stroud: Tempus.
Ginsburg, J. (2006). Representing Agrippina: constructions of female power in the early Roman empire. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Glasson, T. F. (1961). Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology, with special reference to the apocalypses and pseude-
pigraphs. London: S. P. C. K.
Gleason, K. L. (1996). “Ruler and Spectacle: the promontory palace.” Pp. 208-27 in Caesarea Maritima: a retro-
spective after two millennia, ed. A. Raban and K. G. Holum. Leiden: Brill.
Gleason, M. W. (1999). “Elite Male Identity in the Roman Empire.” Pp. 67-84 in Life, Death, and Entertainment in
the Roman Empire, ed. D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gnuse, R. K. (1996). Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: a traditio-historical analysis. Leiden:
Brill.
Goldsworthy, A. (1996). The Roman Army at War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldsworthy, A. (2003). The Complete Roman Army. London: Thames & Hudson.
Goodchild, R. G. (1949). “The Coast Road of Phoenicia and its Roman Milestones.” Berytus 9: 91-127.
Goodenough, E. R. (1988). Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goodman, M. (1987). The Ruling Class of Judaea: the origins of the Jewish revolt against Rome AD 66-70. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, M. (1990). “Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity.” Pp. 227-45 in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish
and Christian Literature and History, ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White. Sheffield: JSOT.
Goodman, M. (1994). Mission and Conversion: proselytizing in the religious history of the Roman Empire. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Goranson, S. (1984). “Essenes: Etymology from ‫עשה‬.” RevQ 11: 483-98.
Grabbe, L. L. (1992). Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Gradel, I. (2002). Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon.
bibliography 427

Gray, R. (1993). Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: the evidence from Josephus. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Green, P. (1990). Alexander to Actium: the historical evolution of the Hellenistic age. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Green, P. (2007). The Hellenistic Age: a history. New York: Modern Library.
Griffin, M. T. (1984). Nero: the end of a dynasty. London: B.T. Batsford.
Griffith, R. D. (1998). “The Origin of Memnon.” Classical Antiquity 17: 212-34.
Gruen, E. S. (2002). Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Grünenfelder, R. (2003). Frauen an den Krisenherden: eine rhetorisch-politische Deutung des Bellum Judaicum.
Münster: LIT.
Grünewald, T. (1999). Räuber, Rebellen, Rivalen, Rächer: Studien zu Latrones im römischen Reich. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner.
Habicht, C. (1970). Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. München: Beck.
Habinek, T. (1998). The Politics of Latin Literature: writing, identity, and empire in ancient Rome. Princeton: Princ-
eton University Press.
Hachlili, R. (2005). Jewish Funerary Customs: practices and rites in the Second Temple period. Leiden: Brill.
Hadas-Lebel, M. (1987). “L’évolution de l’image de Rome auprès des Juifs en deux siècles de relations judéo-
romaines, 164 à +70.” ANRW 2.20.2: 715-856.
Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Hall, L. J. (2001-2002). “Berytus Through the Classical Texts: from colonia to civitas.” Aram Periodical 13-14:
141-169.
Hamrick, E. W. (1966). “New Excavations at Sukenik’s ‘Third Wall’.” BASOR 183: 19-26.
Hamrick, E. W. (1968). “Further Notes on The ‘Third Wall’.” BASOR 192: 21-25.
Hamrick, E. W. (1977). “The Third Wall of Agrippa I.” BA 40: 18-23.
Hands, A. R. (1959). “Sallust and Dissimulatio.” JRS 49: 56-60.
Hannah, R. (2005). Greek and Roman Calendars: constructions of time in the classical world. London: Duck-
worth.
Hanson, J. S. (1980). “Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity.” ANRW 2.23.2:
1395-1427.
Hanson, K. C. and D. E. Oakman (1998). Palestine in the Time of Jesus: social structures and social confl icts.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Hanson, R. S. (1980). Tyrian Infl uence in the Upper Galilee. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental
Research.
Hanson, V. D. (1989). The Western Way of War: infantry battle in classical Greece. New York: A. A. Knopf.
Har-El, M. (1981). “Jerusalem and Judea: Roads and Fortifications.” BA 44: 8-19.
Harland, P. A. (2002). “The Economy of First-Century Palestine: State of the Scholarly Discussion.” Pp. 511-27
in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, ed. A. J. Blasi, J. Duhaime and P.-A. Turcotte.
Walnut Creek, Calif.: Alta Mira.
Harris, W. V. (1999). “Demography, Geography and the Sources of Roman Slaves.” JRS 89: 62-75.
Harris, W. V. (2001). Restraining Rage: the ideology of anger control in classical antiquity. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Harris, W. V. and G. Ruffini (2004). Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. Leiden: Brill.
Haselberger, L. et al. (2002). Mapping Augustan Rome. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Healy, J. F. (1999). Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hengel, M. (1977). Crucifi xion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Philadelphia: For-
tress.
Hengel, M. (1989). The Zealots: investigations into the Jewish freedom movement in the period from Herod I until
70 A.D. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Herman, G. (1987). Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hestrin, R. and Z. Yeivin (1977). “Oil from the Presses of Tirat-Yehuda.” BA 40: 29-31.
Hirt, S. C. (2001). Eros and Conversion: erotic vision in the conversions of Aseneth and Thecla. Stanford: Ph.D.
Dissertation, Dept. of Classics, Stanford University.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1972). Bandits. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hodge, A. T. (2002). Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply. London: Duckworth.
428 bibliography

Hoehner, H. W. (1972). Herod Antipas. Cambridge: University Press.

Holum, K. G. (1999). “The Temple Platform: progress report on the excavations.” Pp. 12-34 in Caesarea Papers
2: Herod’s temple, the provincial governor’s praetorium and granaries, the later harbor, a gold coin hoard, and
other studies, ed. K. G. Holum, A. Raban and J. Patrich. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Holum, K. G., A. Raban, and J. Patrich, eds. (1999). Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s temple, the provincial governor’s
praetorium and granaries, the later harbor, a gold coin hoard, and other studies. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of
Roman Archaeology.
Honigman, S. (1997). “Philon, Flavius Josèphe, et la citoyenneté alexandrine: vers une utopie politique.” JJS 48:
62-90.
Horbury, W. and D. Noy (1992). Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hornblower, S. (1991). A Commentary on Thucydides. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Horsley, R. A. (1979). “Josephus and the Bandits.” JSJ 10: 37-63.
Horsley, R. A. (1986). “The High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine: a contextual analysis of the evidence
in Josephus.” JSJ 17: 23-55.
Horsley, R. A. (1995). Galilee: history, politics, people. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International.
Horsley, R. A. (1996). Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: the social context of Jesus and the rabbis. Val-
ley Forge: Trinity Press International.
Horsley, R. A. and J. S. Hanson (1988). Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: popular movements at the time of Jesus.
New York: Harper & Row.
Humphrey, J. H. (1996). “‘Amphitheatrical’ Hippo-Stadia.” Pp. 121-29 in Caesarea Maritima: a retrospective after
two millennia, ed. A. Raban and K. G. Holum. Leiden: Brill.
Huntsman, E. D. (1997). The Family and Property of Livia Drusilla. Philadelphia: Ph.D. Dissertation, Group in
Ancient History, University of Pennsylvania.
Hurley, D. W. (1993). An historical and historiographical commentary on Suetonius’ Life of C. Caligula. Atlanta:
Scholars.
Ilan, T. (1996). “Josephus and Nicolaus on Women.” Pp. 221-62 in Geschichte - Tradition - Refl exion: Festschrift
für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. 1, Judentum, ed. Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Ilan, T. (1999). Integrating Women into Second Temple History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Ilan, T. and J. J. Price (1993-1994). “Seven Onomastic Problems in Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum.” JQR 84:
189-208.
Isaac, B. H. (1984). “Bandits in Judaea and Arabia.” HSCP 88: 171-203.
Isaac, B. H. (1992). The Limits of Empire: the Roman army in the east, revised edn. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Isaac, B. H. (1998). The Near East under Roman Rule: selected papers. Leiden: Brill.
Isings, C. (1957). Roman Glass from Dated Finds. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.
Isserlin, B. S. J., R. E. Jones et al. (1994). “The Canal of Xerxes on the Mount Athos Peninsula.” Annual of the
British School at Athens 89: 277-284.
Jackson Knight, W. F. (1970). Elysion: on Ancient Greek and Roman beliefs concerning a life after death. London:
Rider.
Jebb, R. (1907). Essays and Addresses. Cambridge: The University Press.
Jensen, M. H. (2006). Herod Antipas in Galilee: the literary and archaeological sources on the reign of Herod
Antipas and its socio-economic impact on Galilee. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Jensen, M. H. (2007). “Herod Antipas in Galilee: friend or foe of the historical Jesus?” Journal for the Study of the
Historical Jesus 5: 7-32.
Jeremias, J. (1969). Jerusalem: In the Time of Jesus: an investigation into economic and social conditions during
the New Testament period. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Johnston, D. E. L. (1999). Roman Law in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, A. H. M. (1928). “Inscriptions from Jerash.” JRS 18: 144-178.
Jones, A. H. M. (1940). The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford: Clarendon.
Jones, A. H. M. (1937). The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford: Clarendon.
Jones, A. H. M. (1950). “The Aerarium and the Fiscus.” JRS 40: 22-29.
Jones, A. H. M. (1970). Augustus. London: Chatto & Windus.
Jones, B. W. (1992). The Emperor Domitian. London: Routledge.
bibliography 429

Jones, B. W. and R. D. Milns (2002). Suetonius: The Flavian Emperors. A historical commentary. London: Bristol
Classical Press.
Jones, C. P. (2002). “Towards a Chronology of Josephus.” Scripta Classica Israelica 21: 113-21.
Jossa, G. (2001). I gruppi giudaica ai tempi di Gesù. Brescia: Paideia.
Kajanto, I. (1982). The Latin Cognomina. Rome: G. Bretschneider.
Kamm, A. (2006). Julius Caesar: a life. London: Routledge.
Kasher, A. (1977). “The Isopoliteia Question in Caesarea Maritima.” JQR 68: 16-27.
Kasher, A. (1985). The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: the struggle for equal rights. Tübingen: Mohr &
Siebeck.
Kasher, A. (1988). Jews, Idumaeans, and ancient Arabs: relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the nations of the
frontier and the desert during the Hellenistic and Roman era (332 BCE-70 CE). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Kasher, A. (1990). Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz Israel: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hel-
lenistic Cities During the Second Temple Period (332-70 CE). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Kashtan, N. (1988). “Akko-Ptolemais, a maritime metropolis in Hellenistic and early Roman times, 332 BCE-70
CE, as seen through the literary sources.” Mediterranean Historical Review 3: 37-53.
Kennard, J. S. (1945-46). “Judas of Galilee and his Clan.” JQR 36: 281-86.
Kennedy, D. L. (2007). Gerasa and the Decapolis: a ‘virtual island’ in northwest Jordan. London: Duckworth.
Keppie, L. (1998). The Making of the Roman Army: from republic to empire. London: Routledge.
Kessler, D. and P. Temin. (2007). “The Organization of the Grain Trade in the Early Roman Empire.” Economic
History Review 60: 313-32.
Khouri, R. (1986). Jerash: a frontier city of the Roman East. London: Longman.
Kienast, D. (1996). Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kindler, A. (1995a). “The Coins of the Tetrarch Philip and Bethsaida.” Pp. 245-49 in Bethsaida: a city by the
north shore of the Sea of Galilee, ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund. Vol. 2. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University
Press.
Kindler, A. (1995b). “The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Bethsaida.” Pp. 250-68 in Bethsaida: a city by the
north shore of the Sea of Galilee, ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund. Vol. 2. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University
Press.
Kisa, A. (1908). Das Glas im Altertume. 3 vols. Leipzig: Hiersemann.
Klein, J. (1881). Fasti Consulares inde a Caesaris nece usque ad imperium Diocletiani. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Kloner, A. (1986). “The ‘Third Wall’ In Jerusalem and The ‘Cave of the Kings (Josephus War V 147).” Levant 18:
121-29.
Kloppenborg, J. S. (2000). “Ethnic and Political Factors in the Conflict at Caesarea Maritima.” Pp. 227-48 in Re-
ligious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima, ed. T. L. Donaldson. Waterloo: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press.
Koch, D.-A. (2006). “The God-fearers Between Facts and Fiction.” Studia Theologica 60: 62-90.
Kohler, K. (1901-1906). “Essenes.” Jewish Encyclopaedia 5: 224-232.
Kokkinos, N. (1990). “A Fresh Look at the ‘Gentilicium’ of Felix Procurator of Judaea.” Latomus 49: 126-41.
Kokkinos, N. (1998). The Herodian Dynasty: origins, role in society and eclipse. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Kokkinos, N. (2003). “Justus, Josephus, Agrippa II and his Coins.” Scripta Classica Israelica 22: 163-80.
Konstan, D. (1997). Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Konstan, D. (1997). “Defining Ancient Greek Ethnicity” (Review of J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity).
Diaspora 6: 97-110.
Kraabel, A. T. (1981). “The Disappearance of the “God-fearers”.” Numen 28: 113-126.
Kraeling, C. H., ed. (1938). Gerasa city of the Decapolis: an account embodying the record of a joint excavation
conducted by Yale University and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1928-1930), and Yale Uni-
versity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930-1931, 1933-34). New Haven: American School of
Oriental Research.
Kraeling, C. H. (1942). “The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem.” HTR 35: 263-89.
Krause, J.-U. (1996). Gefängnisse im römischen Reich. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.
Kreissig, H. (1969). “Die landwirtschaftliche Situation in Palästina vor dem judäischen Krieg.” Acta Antiqua Aca-
demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17: 223-254.
430 bibliography

Kreissig, H. (1970). Die sozialen Zusammenhänge des judäischen Krieges: Klassen und Klassenkampf im Palästina
des 1. Jahrhunderts v. u. Z. Berlin: Akademie.
Krieger, K.-S. (1994). Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus. Tübingen: Francke.
Krieger, K.-S. (1995). “Pontius Pilatus—ein Judenfeind? Zur Problematik einer Pilatusbiographie.” Biblische Notizen
78: 63-83.
Kuhn, H.-W. and R. Arav (1991). “The Bethsaida Excavations: Historical and Archaeological Approaches.”
Pp. 77-106 in The Future of Early Christianity. B. A. Pearson. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Kushnir-Stein, A. (1999). “Review of Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty.” Scripta Classica Israelica 18:
194-198.
Kushnir-Stein, A. (2002). “The Coinage of Agrippa II.” Scripta Classica Israelica 21: 123-31.
Laitin, D. (1995). “National Revivals and Violence.” Archives Européennes de Sociologie / European Journal of
Sociology / Europäisches Archiv für Soziologie 36: 3-43.
Lämmer, M. (1976). “Griechische Wettkämpfe in Galiläa unter der Herrscchaft des Herodes Antipas.” Jahrbuch der
deutschen Hochschule Köln 1976. Schorndorf: Hofmann.
Laqueur, R. (1970) [1920]. Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellen-
kritischer Grundlage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Lausberg, H. (1998). Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: a foundation for literary study. Leiden: Brill.
Le Bohec, Y. (1994). The Imperial Roman Army. London: Routledge.
Le Bohec, Y. and C. Wolff (2000). Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Actes du congrès de Lyon (17-19
septembre 1998). 3 vols. Paris: de Boccard.
Le Moyne, J. (1972). Les Sadducéens. Paris: J. Gabalda.
Lémonon, J.-P. (1981). Pilate et le gouvernement de la Judée: textes et monuments. Paris: J. Gabalda.
Lendon, J. E. (1997). Empire of Honour: the art of government in the Roman world. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Leon, H. J. (1960). The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America [now Hendrick-
son Publishers].
Leveau, P. (2001). “Aqueduct Building: Financing and Costs.” Pp. 85-101 in Frontinus’ Legacy: essays on Frontinus’
de aquis urbis Romae, ed. D. R. Blackman and A. T. Hodge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Levick, B. (1999a). Vespasian. London: Routledge.
Levick, B. (1999b). Tiberius the Politician, revised edn. London: Routledge.
Levick, B. (2001). Claudius. London: Routledge.
Levine, L. I. (1974). “The Jewish-Greek Conflict in First Century Caesarea.” JJS 25: 381-397.
Levine, L. I. (1975a). Caesarea under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill.
Levine, L. I. (1975b). Roman Caesarea: an archaeological-topographical study. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Levine, L. I. (1992). The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Levine, L. I. (2000). The Ancient Synagogue: the fi rst thousand years. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Levine, L. I. (2004). “The First-Century Synagogue: Critical Reassessments and Assessments of the Critical.”
Pp. 70-102 in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, ed. D. R. Edwards.
London: Routledge.
Levison, J. R. (2002). “The Roman Character of Funerals in the Writings of Josephus.” JSJ 33: 246-77.
Lindner, H. (1972). Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum. Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag
zur Quellenfrage. Leiden: Brill.
Lintott, A. W. (1993). Imperium Romanum: politics and administration. London: Routledge.
Lintott, A. W. (1999). The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lo Cascio, E. (2000). Il princeps e il suo impero: studi di storia amministrativa e finanziaria romana. Bari: Edipug-
lia.
Long, A. A. (1948). “Plato’s Doctrine of Metempsychosis and Its Source.” Classical Weekly 41: 149-55.
Lönnquist, K. A. (2000). “Pontius Pilate—An Aqueduct Builder? Recent Findings and New Suggestions.” Klio 82:
458-74.
Lönnqvist, K. A. (1997). “A Re-Attribution of the King Herod Agrippa I ‘Year 6’-Issue: The Canopy and Three
Ears of Corn.” Liber Annus 47: 429-40.
Luce, T. J. (1997). The Greek Historians. London: Routledge.
Lüdemann, G. (1980). “The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: a critical evaluation of the Pella-traditions.”
bibliography 431

Pp. 161-73 in Jewish and Christian Self-Defi nition, vol. 1: the shaping of Christianity in the second and third
centuries, ed. E. P. Sanders. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Luther, H. (1910). Josephus und Justus von Tiberias: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des jüdischen Aufstandes. Halle:
Wischan & Burkhardt.
Luttwak, E. N. (1976). The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire From the First century A.D. to the Third. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mader, G. (2000). Josephus and the Politics of Historiography: apologetic and impression management in the Bel-
lum Judaicum. Leiden: Brill.
Magie, D. (1950) [1975]. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. 2 vols. New
York: Arno.
Magness, J. (2002). The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Makhouly, N. and C. N. Johns (1946). Guide to Acre. Jerusalem: Government of Palestine, Department of Antiqui-
ties.
Malitz, J. (2003). Leben des Kaisers Augustus, Nikolaos von Damaskus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft.
Malitz, J. (2005). Nero. Trans. A. Brown. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mann, J. C. (1979). “Power, Force and the Frontiers of the Empire.” JRS 69: 175-183.
Mare, W. H. (1987). The Archaeology of the Jerusalem Area. Eugene: Wipf & Stock.
Marrou, H. I. (1956). A History of Education in Antiquity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Marsden, E. W. (1969). Greek and Roman Artillery: historical development. Oxford: Clarendon.
Marsden, E. W. (1971). Greek and Roman artillery: technical treatises. Oxford: Clarendon.
Martin Nagy, R. (1996). Sepphoris in Galilee: crosscurrents of culture. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Masi, A. (1971). Ricerche sulla res privata del princeps. Milan: Giuffrè.
Mason, H. J. (1974). Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: a lexicon and analysis. Toronto: Hakkert.
Mason, S. (1991). Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: a composition-critical study. Leiden: Brill.
Mason, S. (1994). “Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House.” Pp. 161-91 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-
Roman Period: essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers. Leiden: Brill.
Mason, S. (1995). “Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts.” Pp. 115-77 in The Book of Acts in
its First-Century Setting, vol. 4: The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, ed. R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Mason, S. (1996). “The Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: an invitation to Judean philosophy.”
Pp. 187-228 in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to
the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison. Leiden: Brill.
Mason, S. (1999a). “Revisiting Josephus’s Pharisees.” Pp. 23-56 in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 3, Where We
Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism, vol. 2, ed. J. Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck. Leiden: Brill.
Mason, S. (1999b). “Early Jewish and Christian Uses of Philosophy.” Pp. 111-18 in The Columbia History of Western
Philosophy, ed. R. H. Popkin. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mason, S. (2002). “Josephus and his Twenty-Two Book Canon.” Pp. 110-27 in The Canon Debate: the origins and
formation of the Bible, ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Mason, S. (2003a). “Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome: reading on and between the lines.” Pp. 559-89 in Flavian
Rome: culture, image, text, ed. A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.
Mason, S. (2003b). “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and historical method.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism
6: 145-188.
Mason, S. (2003c). Josephus and the New Testament, revised edn. Peabody: Hendrickson.
Mason, S. (2005a). “Figured Speech and Irony in T. Flavius Josephus.” Pp. 243-88 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian
Rome, ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason and J. Rives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mason, S. (2005b). “Of Audience and Meaning: reading Josephus’ Bellum Iudaicum in the context of a Flavian
audience.” Pp. 70-100 in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, ed. J. Sievers and G. Lembi.
Leiden: Brill.
Mason, S. (2006). “Encountering the Past through the Works of Flavius Josephus.” Pp. 105-38 in Historical Knowl-
edge in Biblical Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner, B. D. Chilton, and W. S. Green. Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing.
Mason, S. (2007a). “Josephus’ Pharisees: the Narratives.” Pp. 3-40 in In Quest of the Historical Pharisees, ed.
J. Neusner and B. Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press.
Mason, S. (2007b). “Josephus’ Pharisees: the Philosophy.” Pp. 41-76 in In Quest of the Historical Pharisees, ed.
J. Neusner and B. Chilton. Waco: Baylor University Press.
432 bibliography

Mason, S. (2007c). “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: problems of categorization in ancient history.” JSJ 38:
457-512.
Mason, S. (2007d). “Essenes and Lurking Spartans in Josephus’ Judean War: from story to history.” Pp. 219-61 in
Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. Z. Rodgers. Leiden: Brill.
Mason, S. (2008a). “Josephus, the Greeks, and the Distant Past.” Forthcoming in Antiquity in Antiquity, ed.
K. Osterloh and G. Gardner. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Mason, S. (2008b). “Of Despots, Diadems, and Diadochoi: Josephus and Flavian politics.” Forthcoming in Writing
Politics in Imperial Rome. W. J. Dominik and J. Garthwaite. Leiden: Brill.
Massey, M. and P. Moreland. (1978). Slavery in Ancient Rome. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
Mattern, S. P. (1999). Rome and the Enemy: imperial strategy in the principate. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Matthews, S. (2001). First Converts: rich pagan women and the rhetoric of mission in early Judaism and Christian-
ity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Matyszak, P. (2006) The Sons of Caesar: imperial Rome’s fi rst dynasty. London: Thames & Hudson.
Mayer-Schärtel, B. (1995). Das Frauenbild des Josephus: eine sozialgeschichtliche und kulturanthropologische
Untersuchung. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Mazar, A. (2002). A Survey of the Aqueducts to Jerusalem. Pp. 210-42 in The Aqueducts of Israel, ed. D. Amit,
J. Patrich and Y. Hirschfeld. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Mazar, B. (1978). “Herodian Jerusalem in the Light of the Excavations South and South-West of the Temple Mount.”
IEJ 28: 230-37.
Mazard, J. (1955). Corpus Nummorum Numidiae Mauretaniaeque. Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques.
McCray, P., ed. (1998). The Prehistory and History of Glassmaking Technology. Westerville: The American Ceramic
Society.
McEleney, N. J. (1974). “Conversion, Circumcision and the Law.” NTS 20: 319-341.
McGing, B. C. (1991). “Pontius Pilate and the Sources.” CBQ 53: 416-38.
McKechnie, P. (2005). “Judaean Embassies and Cases before Roman Emperors, AD 44-66.” JTS 56: 339-361.
McLaren, J. S. (1991). Power and Politics in Palestine: the Jews and the governing of their land, 100 BC-AD 70.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
McLaren, J. S. (1998). Turbulent Times? Josephus and scholarship on Judaea in the fi rst century. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press.
McNicoll, A., ed. (1982). Pella in Jordan, 1: an interim report on the joint University of Sydney and The College
of Wooster excavations at Pella 1979-1981. Canberra: Australian National Gallery.
Meier, J. P. (2000). “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Samaritans: What Can Be Said?” Biblica 81: 202-32.
Mélèze-Modrzejewski, J. (1995). The Jews of Egypt: from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark.
Meshorer, Y. (1982). Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills: Amphora Books.
Meshorer, Y. (2001). A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem: Yad ben-Zvi.
Meyer, R. (1965). Tradition und Neuschöpfung im antiken Judentum. Berlin: Akademie.
Meyers, E. M. (1999). Galilee Through the Centuries: confl uence of cultures. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Meyers, E. M. (2002). “Sepphoris: city of peace.” Pp. 110-20 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and
Ideology, ed. A. Berlin and J. A. Overman. London: Routledge.
Meyers, C. L. E. M. Meyers, and J. F. Strange (1974). “Excavations at Meiron, in Upper Galilee. 1971, 1972:
A Preliminary Report.” BASOR 214: 2-25.
Meyers, E. M., J. F. Strange and C. L. Meyers, eds. (1981). Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel,
1971-72, 1974-75, 1977. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer, E. (2002). Πολιτικῶς ἄρχειν: zum Regierungsstil der senatorischen Statthalter in den kaiser-
zeitlichen griechischen Provinzen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Millar, F. G. B. (1963). “Review of Les Carrières Procuratoriennes Équestres sous le Haut-Empire I-III [H. G.
Pflaum]” JRS 53: 194-200.
Millar, F. G. B. (1964). A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford: Clarendon.
Millar, F. G. B. (1977). The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 BC-AD 337. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Millar, F. G. B. (1990). “The Roman ‘Coloniae’ of the Near East: a study of cultural relations.” Pp. 7-58 in Roman
Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History: proceedings of a colloquium at Tvärminne, 2-3 October
1987, ed. H. Solin and K. Mika. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
Millar, F. G. B. (1993). The Roman Near East: 31 B. C.-A. D. 337. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
bibliography 433

Millar, F. G. B. (2004). Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Vol. 2: Government, Society & Culture in the Roman
Empire, ed. H. M. Cotton and G. M. Rogers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Miller, J. F. (2000). “Triumphus in Palatio.” AJP 121: 409-422.
Mitchell, S. (1993). Anatolia: land, men, and gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moehring, H. R. (1957). Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus. Chicago: Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Moehring, H. R. (1975). “The acta pro Iudaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus.” Pp. 124-58 in Christian-
ity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Vol. 3: Judaism before 70, ed.
J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill.
Momigliano, A. (1971). Alien Wisdom: the limits of Hellenization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mommsen, T. (1887). The Provinces of the Roman Empire from Caesar to Diocletian. 2 vols. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
Moore, G. F. (1929). “Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to Josephus.” HTR 22: 371-389.
Moore, C. H. (1963). Ancient Beliefs in the Immortality of the Soul, with some Account of their Infl uence on later
Views. New York: Cooper Square Publishers.
Munn, M. H. (2006). The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: a study of sovereignty in ancient
religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Murray, M. (2000). “Jews and Judaism in Caesarea Maritima.” Pp. 127-52 in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle
for Success in Caesarea Maritima, ed. T. L. Donaldson. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Netzer, E. (2006). The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder, with R. Laureys-Chachy. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck.
Neuburg, F. (1949). Glass in Antiquity. London: Art Trade Press.
Neuburg, F. (1962). Ancient Glass. London: Barrie & Rockliff.
Neusner, J. (1969). A History of the Jews in Babylonia. I. The Parthian Period, revised edn. Leiden: Brill.
Neusner, J. (1971). The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Neusner, J. and B. Chilton, eds. (2007). In Quest of the Historical Pharisees. Waco: Baylor University Press.
Nicolson, F. W. (1897). “The Saliva Superstition in Classical Literature.” HSCP 8: 23-40.
Nock, A. D. (1933). Conversion: the Old and the New in in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of
Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Noy, D. (1993). Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. Volume 1: Italy (Excluding the City of Rome), Spain and
Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noy, D. (1995). Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe. Volume 2: The City of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Oates, W. J. (1934). “The Population of Rome.” Classical Philology 29: 101-16.
Oliver, J. H. (1950). The Athenian Expounders of the Sacred and Ancestral Law. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Oost, S. I. (1958). “The Career of M. Antonius Pallas.” AJP 79: 113-39.
Oppenheim, A. L. (1956). The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, with a Translation of an Assyrian
Dream-Book. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Ottone, G. (2002). Libyka: testimonianze e frammenti. I frammenti degli storici Greci, vol. 1. Tivoli (Rome):
Tored.
Overman, J. A. (1988). “The God-fearers: some neglected features.” JSNT 32: 17-26.
Overman, J. A., J. Olive, and M. Nelson (2003). “Discovering Herod’s Shrine to Augustus: mystery temple found
at Omrit.” BAR 29: 40-49, 67-68.
Page, D. L. (1956). “ὑποκριτής.” The Classical Review 6: 191-92.
Pappano, A. E. (1937). “The False Neros.” CJ 32: 385-92.
Paret, H. (1856). “Über den Pharisäismus des Josephus.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 29: 809-844.
Parker, R. (1983). Miasma: pollution and purifi cation in early Greek religion. Oxford: Clarendon.
Parker, H. M. D. (1992) [1958]. The Roman Legions. New York: Dorset Press.
Parkin, T. G. (1992). Demography and Roman Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pastor, J. (1997). Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine. London: Routledge.
Pater, W. A. de (1984). Immortality: its history in the west. Leuven: Uitgeverij Acco.
Paul, G. M. (1990). “Josephus, the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Grain-Supply of Rome.” The Ancient History
Bulletin 4: 79-83.
Pearson, L. (1952). “Prophasis and Aitia.” TAPA 83: 205-223.
Pearson, L. (1972). “Prophasis: A Clarification.” TAPA 103: 381-394.
434 bibliography

Pelling, C. (2000). Literary Texts and the Greek Historian. London: Routledge.
Penwill, J. (2003). “Expelling the Mind: Politics and Philosophy in Flavian Rome.” Pp. 345-68 n Flavian Rome:
culture, image, text, ed. A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik. Leiden: Brill.
Pflaum, H. G. (1950). Les procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.
Pflaum, H. G. (1960-61). Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain. Paris: P. Geuth-
ner.
Pflaum, H. G. (1982). Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain: supplément. Paris:
P. Geuthner.
Plass, P. (1995). The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: arena sport and political suicide. Madison: University of
Wisconsin.
Pollard, N. (2000). Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pollard, N. (2006). “The Roman Army.” Pp. 206-27 in A Companion to the Roman Empire, ed. D. S. Potter. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Porath, Y. (1995). “Herod’s “Amphitheatre” At Caesarea: a multipurpose entertainment building.” Pp. 15-27 in The
Roman and Byzantine near East: some recent archaeological research, ed. J. H. Humphrey. Ann Arbor: Cushing-
Malloy.
Price, J. J. (1991). “The Enigma of Philip ben Jakimos.” Historia 11: 77-94.
Price, J. J. (1992). Jerusalem under Siege: the collapse of the Jewish state, 66-70 C.E. Leiden: Brill.
Price, J. J. (2001). Thucydides and Internal War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, J. J. (2003). “Josephus’ Reading of Thucydides: a test case in the BJ.” Josephus Seminar of the Society of
Biblical Literature, Annual Meeting 2003: http://pace.cns.yorku.ca/media/pdf/sbl/price2003.pdf.
Price, S. R. F. (1980). “Between Man and God: sacrifice in the Roman imperial cult.” JRS 70: 28-43.
Price, S. R. F. (1984a). “Gods and Emperors: the Greek language of the Roman imperial cult.” JHS 104: 79-95.
Price, S. R. F. (1984b). Rituals and Power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Pucci ben Zeev, M. (1995). “Josephus, Bronze Tablets and Greek Inscriptions.” L’Antiquité Classique 64: 211-215.
Pucci ben Zeev, M. (1998). Jewish Rights in the Roman World: the Greek and Roman documents quoted by Josephus
Flavius. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Pummer, R. (2000). “Samaritanism in Caesarea Maritima.” Pp. 181-202 in Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for
Success in Caesarea Maritima, ed. T. L. Donaldson. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Raban, A. and K. G. Holum, eds. (1996). Caesarea Maritima: a retrospective after two millennia. Leiden: Brill.
Rabinowitz, D. (1997). Overlooking Nazareth: the ethnography of exclusion in Galilee. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rajak, T. (1983). Josephus: the Historian and his Society. London: Duckworth.
Rajak, T. (1991). “Friends, Romans, Subjects: Agrippa II’s speech in Josephus’s ‘Jewish War’. Pp. 122-34 in Images
of Empire, ed. L. Alexander. Sheffield: JSOT.
Rajak, T. (1994). “Ciò Che Flavio Giuseppe Vide: Josephus and the Essenes.” Pp. 141-60 in Josephus and the History
of the Greco-Roman Period: essays in memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers. Leiden: Brill.
Rajak, T. (2002). “Synagogue and Community in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora.” Pp. 22-38 in Jews in the Hellenistic
and Roman Cities, ed. J. R. Bartlett. London: Routledge.
Rankin, H. D. (1996). Celts and the Classical World, revised edn. London: Routledge.
Rasp, H. (1924). “Flavius Josephus und die jüdischen Religionsparteien.” ZNW 23: 27-47.
Rawson, B., ed. (1991). Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Reed, J. L. (2000). Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a re-examination of the evidence. Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International.
Rey-Coquais, J.-P. (1978). “Syrie Romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien.” JRS 68: 44-73.
Richardson, P. (1996). Herod: king of the Jews, friend of the Romans. Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press.
Richardson, P. (2000). “Archaeological Evidence for Religion and Urbanism in Caesarea Maritima.” Pp. 11-34 in
Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima, ed. T. L. Donaldson. Waterloo: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press.
Richardson, P. (2004). Building Jewish in the Roman East. Waco: Baylor University Press.
Rickman, G. (1980). The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ringel, J. Césarée de Palestine: étude historique et archéologique. Paris: Ophrys, 1975.
bibliography 435

Ritmeyer, L. and K. (2006). Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, revised edn. Washington: Biblical Archaeology
Society, 2006.
Ritterling, E. (1925). “Legio.” PW 12: 1186-1837.
Ritterling, E. (1927). “Military Forces in the Senatorial Provinces.” JRS 17: 28-32.
Rives, J. B. (1999). Tacitus: Germania. Translated with introduction and commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
________. (2006). “Magic, Religion, and Law: the case of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et venefi ciis.” Pp. 47-66 in
Religion and Law in Classical and Christian Rome, ed. C. Ando and J. Rüpke. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Rivkin, E. (1978). A Hidden Revolution. Nashville: Abingdon.
Roller, D. W. (1998). The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Roller, D. W. (2003). The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: royal scholarship on Rome’s African frontier.
London: Routledge.
Roller, M. B. (2001). Constructing Autocracy: aristocrats and emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome. Princeton: Princ-
eton University Press.
Romm, J. S. (1992). The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: geography, exploration, and fi ction. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rood, T. (1998). Thucydides: narrative and explanation. Oxford: Clarendon.
Rose, C. B. (1990). “’Princes’ and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis.” AJA 94: 453-67.
Rostovtzeff, M. I. (1919). “Queen Dynamis of Bosporus.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 39: 88-109.
Rostovtzeff, M. I. (1957). The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Roth, J. P. (1991). The Logistics of the Roman Army in the Jewish War. New York: Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University.
Roth, J. P. (1999). The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.-A.D. 235). Leiden: Brill.
Rothenberg, B. and A. B. Freijeiro, eds. (1981). Studies in Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in South-West Spain:
explorations and excavations in the province of Huelva. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies;
Institute of Archaeology; University of London Press.
Rowe, C. and M. Schofield. (2005). The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Royo, M. (1999). Domus Imperatoriae: topographie, formation et imaginaire des palais impériaux du palatin (Iie
siècle av. J.-C. - Ier siècle ap. J.-C.). Rome: École Française de Rome.
Rubincam, C. (1991). “Casualty Figures in the Battle Descriptions of Thucydides.” TAPA 121: 181-98.
Runesson, A. (2001). The Origins of the Synagogue: a socio-historical study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Runnalls, D. R. (1997). “The Rhetoric of Josephus.” Pp. 737-54 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic
Period 330 B.C. - A.D. 400, ed. S. E. Porter. Leiden: Brill.
Russell, D. A. and M. Winterbottom (1972). Ancient Literary Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon.
Sacks, K. S. (1990). Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Saddington, D. B. (1992). “Felix in Samaria: a note on Tac. Ann. 12.54.1 and Suet. Claud. 28.1.” Acta Classica 35:
161-163.
Safrai, Z. (1994). The Economy of Roman Palestine. London: Routledge.
Saldarini, A. J. (1988). Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: a sociological approach. Wil-
mington: Michael Glazier.
Saller, R. P. (1982). Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salmeri, G. (2000). “Dio, Rome, and the Civic Life of Asia Minor.” Pp. 53-92 in Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters,
and Philosophy, ed. S. Swain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sanders, E. P. (1992). Judaism, Practice and Belief, 63 BCE – 66 CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International.
Saulnier, C. (1991). “Flavius Josèphe et la propagande flavienne.” RB 98: 199-221.
Sawicki, M. (2000). Crossing Galilee: architectures of contact in the occupied land of Jesus. Harrisburg: Trinity
Press International.
Schäfer, P. (1997). Judeophobia: attitudes toward the Jews in the ancient world. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Schalit, A. (1968). Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill.
Schalit, A. (1969). König Herodes: der Mann und sein Werk. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Schechter, S. (1961). Aspects of Rabbinic Theology: Major Concepts of the Talmud. New York: Schocken.
Schiffman, L. H. (1994). Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: the history of Judaism, the background of Christianity,
the lost library of Qumran. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
436 bibliography

Schmitt, G. (1981). “Die dritte Mauer Jerusalems.” ZDPV 97: 153-70.

Schneider, R. M. (1998). “Die Faszination des Feindes: Bilder der Parther und des Orients in Rom.” Pp. 95-146 in
Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse, ed. J. Wiesehöfer. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Schottroff, W. (1982). “Die Ituräer.” ZDPV 98: 125-52.
Schröder, B. (1996). Die “väterlichen Gesetze”: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und
Römer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Schürer, E. (1901-11). Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 3rd-4th edn. 3 vols. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrichs.
Schwartz, D. R. (1983). “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees.” JSJ 14: 157-71.
Schwartz, D. R. (1983-84). “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community.” Scripta Classica Israelica 7:
30-52.
Schwartz, D. R. (1990). Agrippa I. The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Schwartz, D. R. (1992). Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Schwartz, D. R. (2002). “Rome and the Jews: Josephus on ‘Freedom’ and ‘Autonomy’.” Pp. 65-82 in Representa-
tions of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean world, ed. A. K. Bowman, H. M. Cotton, M. D. Goodman, and
S. R. F. Price. Oxford: Oxford University Press (for the British Academy).
Schwartz, D. R. (2005). “Herodians and Ioudaioi in Flavian Rome.” Pp. 63-78 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian
Rome, ed. J. Edmondson, S. Mason and J. Rives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, J. (1991). Lod (Lydda), Israel: from its origins through the Byzantine Period, 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E. Ox-
ford: Tempus Reparatum.
Schwartz, S. (1990). Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill.
Scramuzza, V. M. (1940 [repr. 1971]). The Emperor Claudius. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Seager, R. (2002). Pompey the Great: a political biography, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seager, R. (2005). Tiberius, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sebesta, J. L. and L. Bonfante, eds. (2001). The World of Roman Costume. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Segal, A. F. (1990). Paul the Convert: the apostolate and apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Severy, B. A. (2000). “Family and State in the Early Imperial Monarchy.” Classical Philology 95: 318-337.
Shahar, Y. (2004). Josephus Geographicus: the classical context of geography in Josephus. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck.
Shanks, H. (2005). “The Siloam Pool: where Jesus cured the blind man.” BAR 31: 16-33.
Shatzman, I. (1991). The armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod: from Hellenistic to Roman frameworks. Tübingen:
Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Shatzman, I. (1999). “The Integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire.” Scripta Classica Israelica 18: 49-84.
Shaw, B. D. (1984). “Bandits in the Roman Empire.” Past and Present 105: 3-52.
Shaw, B. D. (1993). “Tyrants, Bandits, and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus.” JJS 44: 176-204.
Shaw, B. D. (1995). “Josephus: Roman Power and Responses to It.” Athenaeum 83: 357-90.
Sheedy, K. A, R. Carson, A. Walmsley, K. da Costa. (2001). Pella in Jordan, 1979-1990: the coins. Sydney: Near
Eastern Archaeology Foundation.
Sherk, R. K. (1951). The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Sherk, R. K. (1955). “The Inermes Provinciae of Asia Minor.” AJP 76: 400-13.
Sherk, R. K. (1988). The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sherman, N. (2005). Stoic Warriors: the ancient philosophy behind the military mind. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sherwin-White, A. N. (1963). Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sherwin-White, A. N. (1966). The Letters of Pliny: a historical and social commentary. Oxford: Clarendon.
Shipley, D. R. (1997). A Commentary on Plutarch’s Life of Agesilaos: response to sources in the presentation of
character. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shotter, D. (1992). Tiberius Caesar. London: Routledge.
Shotter, D. (2004). Roman Britain, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Shutt, R. J. H. (1961). Studies in Josephus. London: S. P. C. K.
Siegert, F. (1973). “Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten.” JSJ 4: 109-63.
bibliography 437

Sievers, J. (1998). “Josephus and the Afterlife.” Pp. 20-31 in Understanding Josephus: seven perspectives, ed.
S. Mason. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Sievers, J. (2001). “Review of Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty.” JSJ 32: 101-105.
Sly, D. L. (2000). “The Conflict over Isopoliteia: An Alexandrian Perspective.” Pp. 249-65 in Religious Rivalries
and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritimae, ed. T. L. Donaldson. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press.
Smallwood, E. M. (1959). “Some Comments on Tacitus, Annals XII, 54.” Latomus 18: 560-567.
Smallwood, E. M. (1961). Philonis Alexandrini Legatio Ad Gaium. Leiden: Brill.
Smallwood, E. M. (1981). The Jews Under Roman Rule, from Pompey to Diocletian: a study in political relations,
2nd. edn. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, M. (1956). “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century.” Pp. 67-81 in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed.
M. Davis. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Smith, M. (1958). “The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophoumena.” HUCA 35: 273-313.
Smith, M. (1971). “Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation.” HTR 64: 1-19.
Smith, R. H. and L. P. Day (1989). Pella of the Decapolis. Vol. 2: Final Report on the College of Wooster excava-
tions in the Area IX, the Civic Complex, 1979-1985. Wooster: College of Wooster.
Solin, H. (1996). Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen: ein Namenbuch. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Solin, H. (2003). Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: ein Namenbuch, 2nd. edn. 3 vols. Berlin: W. de
Gruyter.
Sordi, M. (1986). The Christians and the Roman Empire. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Sordi, M. (1993). “Il de Vita Sua di Claudio e le caratteristiche di Claudio come storico di se stesso e di Roma.”
Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo 127: 213-19.
Sperber, D. (1978). Roman Palestine 200-400—the Land: crisis and change in agrarian society as refl ected in rab-
binic sources. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.
Stegemann, H. (1992). “The Qumran Essenes—Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple
Times.”Pp. 83-166 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead
Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March 1991, ed. J. T. Barrerra and L. V. Montaner. Leiden: Brill.
Stemberger, G. (1995). Jewish contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Stern, M. (1974). “The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty.” Pp. 216-307 in The Jewish People in the First
Century. Historical geography, political history, social, cultural and religious life and institutions, vol. 1 ed.
S. Safrai and M. Stern. Philadelphia; Assen: Fortress Press; Van Gorcum.
Stern, M. (1987). “Josephus and the Roman Empire as Reflected in The Jewish War.” Pp. 71-80 in Josephus, Juda-
ism, and Christianity, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata. Leiden: Brill.
Stern, S. (2001). Calendar and Community: a history of the Jewish calendar, second century BCE-tenth century
CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stettner, W. (1934). Die Seelenwanderung bei Griechen und Römern. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Stieglitz, R. R. (1996). “Stratonos Pyrgos—Migdal Sar—Sebastos: History and Archaeology.” Pp. 593-608 in Cae-
sarea Maritima: a retrospective after two millennia, ed. A. Raban and K. G. Holum. Leiden: Brill.
Starr, C. G. (1989). The Infl uence of Sea Power on Ancient History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strickert, F. (1995). “The Coins of Philip.” Pp. 165-89 in Bethsaida: a city by the north shore of the Sea of Galilee,
ed. R. Arav and R. A. Freund. Vol. 1. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press.
Stuart Jones, H. (1926). “Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria.” JRS 16: 17-35.
Sutherland, C. H. V. (1971) [1939]. The Romans in Spain, 217 B.C.-A.D. 117. London: Methuen.
Swain, S. (1996). Hellenism and Empire: language, classicism, and power in the Greek world, AD 50-250. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Syme, R. (1939). The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Syme, R. (1958). Tacitus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.
Syme, R. (1970). Ten Studies in Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon.
Syme, R. (1977). “The Enigmatic Sospes.” JRS 67: 38-49.
Syme, R. (1979). Roman Papers, 7 vols. ed. E. Badian, and A. R. Birley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Syme, R. (1986). The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford: Clarendon.
Syon, D. (2002). “Gamla: City of Refuge.” Pp. 134-54 in The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, Ideology,
ed. A. Berlin and J. A. Overman. London: Routledge.
Tait, H., ed. (1991). Five Thousand Years of Glass. London: British Museum Press.
Taylor, J. E. (2002). “Khirbet Qumran in the Nineteenth Century and the Name of the Site.” PEQ 134: 144-64.
438 bibliography

Taylor, J. (2004). Pythagoreans and Essenes: structural parallels. Paris: Peeters.

Thackeray, H. St. John (1967) [1929]. Josephus: the Man and the Historian. New York: Ktav.
Thoma, C. (1989). “The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus.” Pp. 197-215 in Josephus, the Bible, and
History, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Tomei, M. A. (2000a). “Le Case di Augusto sul Palatino.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
römische Abteilung 107: 7-36.
Tomei, M. A. (2000b). “I resti dell’arco di Ottavio sul Palatino e il Portico delle Danaidi.” Mélanges de l’École
Française de Rome 112: 557-610.
Townend, G. B. (1961). “Some Flavian Connections.” JRS 51: 54-62.
Toynbee, J. M. C. (1971). Death and Burial in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Treggiari, S. (1991). Roman Marriage: iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clar-
endon Press.
Trowbridge, M. L. (1930). Philological studies in Ancient Glass. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Turner, E. W. (1954). “Tiberius Iulius Alexander.” JRS 44: 54-64.
Tyree, E. L. and E. Stefanoudaki (1996). “The Olive Pit and Roman Oil Making.” BA 59: 171-78.
Tzaferis, V. (1985). “Crucifixion—the Archaeological Evidence.” BAR 11: 44-53.
Urman, D. and P. V. M. Flesher (1995). Ancient Synagogues: historical analysis and archaeological discovery.
Leiden: Brill.
Uscatescu, A. and M. Martín-Bueno (1997). “The Macellum of Gerasa (Jerash, Jordan): from a market place to an
industrial area.” BASOR 307: 67-88.
van Henten, J. W. (1997). The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: a study of 2 and 4 Maccabees.
Leiden: Brill.
VanderKam, J. C. (1994). The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Vann, R. L., ed. (1992). Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea.
Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Vermes, G. (1960). “The Etymology of ‘Essenes’.” RevQ 2: 427-443.
Vermes, G. and M. D. Goodman, eds. (1989). The Essenes According to the Classical Sources. Sheffield: JSOT.
Vermes, G. (1995). The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin.
Vincent, L.-H. and F.-M. Abel (1932). Emmaüs: sa basilique et son histoire. Paris: E. Leroux.
Vogel, M. (1999). “Vita 64-69, das Bilderverbot, und die Gailäapolitik des Josephus.” JSJ 30: 65-79.
Vose, R. H. (1980). Glass. London: Collins.
Wacholder, B. Z. (1962). Nicolaus of Damascus. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wacholder, B. Z. (1989). “Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus.” Pp. 147-72 in Josephus, the Bible, and History.
L. H. Feldman and G. Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Walbank, F. W. (1972). Polybius. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Walbank, F. W. (1992). The Hellenistic World. London: Fontana Press.
Walker, C. (2005). Hostages in Republican Rome. Washington: Center for Hellenic Studies. [http://chs.harvard.edu/
publications.sec/online_print_books.ssp].
Wardle, D. (1994). Suetonius’ Life of Caligula: a commentary. Bruxelles: Latomus.
Warren, J. (2004). Facing Death: Epicurus and his critics. Oxford: Clarendon.
Wassèn, C. (1990). “Sadducees and Halakah.” Pp. 127-46 in Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Pe-
riod: the Debate over Torah and Nomos in Post-Biblical Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. P. Richardson and
S. Westerholm. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Watson, G. R. (1969). The Roman Soldier. London: Thames & Hudson.
Watts, D. J. and C. M. Watts (1992). “The Role of Monuments in the Geometrical Ordering of the Roman Master
Plan of Gerasa.” The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51: 306-14.
Webster, G. (1979). The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D., 2nd edn. London: A & C
Black.
Webster, G. (1985). The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D., 3rd edn. London: A & C
Black, 1985.
Webster, G. (1993). Rome against Caratacus: the Roman campaigns in Britain, AD 48-58, revised edn. London:
Batsford.
Webster, G. (1999). Boudica: the British Revolt against Rome, AD 60, revised edn. London: Routledge.
Weeber, K.-W. (2003). Luxus im alten Rom: die Schwelgerei, das suesse Gift. Darmstadt: Primus.
bibliography 439

Weiss, A. (2004). Sklave der Stadt: Untersuchungen zur öffentlichen Sklaverei in den Städten des römischen Reiches.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Welch, F. (2007). A Romanov Fantasy: life at the court of Anna Anderson. London: Short Books.
Wells, P. S. (2003). The Battle That Stopped Rome: Emperor Augustus, Armenius, and the slaughter of the legions
in the Teutoburg Forest. New York: W. W. Norton.
West, M. L. (1992). Ancient Greek Music. Oxford: Clarendon.
West, M. L. (2003). “‘Iliad’ and ‘Aethiopis’.” CQ 53: 1-14.
Wheeler, E. F. (1996). “The Laxity of Syrian Legions.” Pp. 229-76 in The Roman Army in the East, ed. D. L. Ken-
nedy. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Whittaker, C. R. (1994). Frontiers of the Roman Empire: a social and economic study. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Whittaker, C. R. (2004). Rome and its Frontiers: the dynamics of empire. London: Routledge.
Williams, D. S. (1992). Stylometric Authorship Studies in Flavius Josephus and Related Literature. Lewiston: The
Edwin Mellen Press.
Williams, D. S. (1994). “Josephus and the Authorship of War 2.119-161 (On the Essenes).” JSJ 25: 207-221.
Wiseman, T. P. (1991). Death of an Emperor: Flavius Josephus. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Wolfson, H. A. (1944). “Philo on Jewish Citizenship in Alexandria.” JBL 63: 165-68.
Woodman, A. J. (1988). Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: four studies. London: Croom Helm.
Yadin, Y. (1957). The Message of the Scrolls. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Zanker, P. (2002). “Domitian’s Palace on the Palatine and the Imperial Image.” Pp. 105-30 in Representations of
Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World, ed. A. K. Bowman, H. M. Cotton, M. D. Goodman, and S. R. F.
Price. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zayadine, F., ed. (1986). Jerash Archaelogical Project, 1981-1983. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan.
Zeitlin, S. (1919-20). “Megillat Taanit as a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in the Hellenistic and Roman
Periods.” JQR 10: 237-90.
Zeitlin, S. (1965). “Masada and the Sicarii.” JQR 55: 299-317.
Zeitlin, S. (1967). “The Sicarii and Masada.” JQR 57: 251-70.
Zias, J. and E. Sekeles (1985). “The Crucified Man from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar: a reappraisal.” BA 48: 190-91.
Zias, J. and E. Sekeles (1985). “The Crucified Man from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar: a reappraisal.” IEJ 35: 22-27.
Zias, J. E., J. D. Tabor, and S. Harter-Lailheugue (2006). “Toilets at Qumran, the Essenes, and the Scrolls: New
Anthropological Data and Old Theories.” RevQ 22: 631-40.
Ziolkowski, A. (1993). “Urbs direpta, or How the Romans Sacked Cities.” Pp. 69-91 in War and Society in the Ro-
man World, ed. J. Rich and G. Shipley. London: Routledge.
440 bibliography
critical editions of fragmentary texts cited 441

CRITICAL EDITIONS OF FRAGMENTARY TEXTS CITED

Aeschylus Trag. Atheniensis, Fragmenta (Mette) = H.J. Mette, Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1959: 1-255.
Cornelius Alexander Polyhist., Fragmenta = K. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (FHG) 3. Paris: Didot,
1841-1870: 210-244.
Antisthenes Phil. et Rhet., Fragmenta varia = F.D. Caizzi, Antisthenis fragmenta. Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisal-
pino, 1966: 29-59.
Apion Gramm., Fragmenta de glossis Homericis (Ludwich) = A. Ludwich, “Über die homerischen Glossen Apions,”
Philologus 74 (1917) 209-247; 75 (1919) 95-103.
Aelius Aristides Rhet., Παναθηναϊκός = W. Dindorf, Aristides, vol. 1. Leipzig: Reimer, 1829 (repr. Hildesheim:
Olms, 1964): 150-320.
Aelius Aristides Rhet., Πρὸς Λεπτίνην ὑπὲρ ἀτελείας = W. Dindorf, Aristides, vol. 2. Leipzig: Reimer, 1829 (repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1964): 651-706.
Aristophanes Comic., Fragmenta (Kock: Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, vol. 1) = T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum
fragmenta, vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1880: 392-439, 441-474, 477-536, 538-562, 564-599.
Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Fragmenta varia = V. Rose, Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1886 (repr. Stuttgart, 1967): 23-425.
Aristoxenus Mus., Fragmenta = F. Wehrli, Aristoxenos [Die Schule des Aristoteles vol. 2, 2nd edn. Basel: Schwabe,
1967]: 10-41.
Arius Didymus Doxogr., Liber de philosophorum sectis = F.W.A. Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum,
vol. 2. Paris: Didot, 1867 (repr. 1968): 53-101.
Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae = G. Kaibel, Athenaei Naucratitae deipnosophistarum libri xv, 3 vols. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1-2:1887; 3:1890 (repr. Stuttgart, 1-2:1965; 3:1966): 1:1-491; 2:1-498; 3:1-560.
Callimachus Philol., Aetia = R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949: 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 12,
14-16, 18, 20-30, 32-37, 39, 41-46, 48-58, 60-104, 106-109, 111-112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124-159.
Cassius Dio Hist., Historiae Romanae = U.P. Boissevain, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani historiarum Romanarum quae
supersunt, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1:1895; 2:1898; 3:1901 (repr. 1955).
Chrysippus Phil., Fragmenta logica et physica = J. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, vol. 2. Leipzig:
Teubner, 1903 (repr. 1968): 1-348.
Chrysippus Phil., Fragmenta moralia = J. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, vol. 3. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903
(repr. 1968): 3-191.
Critodemus Astrol., Fragmenta (Kroll) = W. Kroll, Codices Romani [Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum
5.2. Brussels: Lamertin, 1906]: 52-53, 113, 120-121.
Ctesias Hist. et Med., Fragmenta = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrH) #688. Leiden:
Brill, 1923-1958 (repr. 1954-1969): 3C:420-517.
Demades Orat. et Rhet., Fragmenta = V. de Falco, Demade oratore. Testimonianze e frammenti, 2nd edn. Naples:
Libreria Scientifica Editrice, 1955: 19-54, 60-68, 83-87.
Demetrius Hist. et Phil., Fragmenta = F. Wehrli, Demetrios von Phaleron [Die Schule des Aristoteles vol. 4, 2nd
edn. Basel: Schwabe, 1968]: 21-44.
Empedocles Poet. Phil., Fragmenta = H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1, 6th edn.
Berlin: Weidmann, 1951 (repr. 1966): 308-374.
Epicurus Phil., Epistularum fragmenta = G. Arrighetti, Epicuro. Opere, 2nd edn. Turin: Einaudi, 1973: 421-476.
Epicurus Phil., Gnomologium Vaticanum Epicureum = G. Arrighetti, Epicuro. Opere, 2nd edn. Turin: Einaudi, 1973:
141-157.
Erasistratus Med., Testimonia et fragmenta = I. Garofalo, Erasistrati fragmenta. Pisa: Giardini, 1988: 59-102,
104-121, 123-126, 129-146, 148-149, 151-154, 156-158, 160, 162-173.
Eupolis Comic., Fragmenta (Kock) = T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner, 1880:
258-270, 272-355, 357-369.
Ezechiel Trag., Ἐξαγωγή = B. Snell, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht, 1971: 288-301.
442 critical editions of fragmentary texts cited

Galenus Med., De consuetudinibus = G. Helmreich, J. Marquardt, and I. Müller, Claudii Galeni Pergameni scripta
minora, vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1891 (repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967): 9-31.
Galenus Med., De usu partium = G. Helmreich, Galeni de usu partium libri xvii. Leipzig: Teubner, 1:1907; 2:1909
(repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1968): 1:1-496; 2:1-451.
Galenus Med., In Hippocratis librum vi epidemiarum commentarii vi = E. Wenkebach, Galeni in Hippocratis sex-
tum librum epidemiarum commentaria i-vi [Corpus medicorum Graecorum 5.10.2.2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1940]:
3-351.
Hecataeus Hist. Abderita, Fragmenta (Jacoby) = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrH)
#264. Leiden: Brill, 1923-1958 (repr. 1954-1969): 3A:12-64.
Hecataeus Hist. Milesius, Fragmenta (Jacoby) = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrH) #1.
Leiden: Brill, 1923-1958 (repr. 1954-1969): 1A:7-47, *1-*4 addenda.
Heraclides Ponticus Phil., Fragmenta = F. Wehrli, Herakleides Pontikos [Die Schule des Aristoteles vol. 7, 2nd edn.
Basel: Schwabe, 1969]: 13-54.
Aelius Herodianus et Pseudo–Herodianus Gramm. et Rhet., Partitiones = J.F. Boissonade, Herodiani partitiones.
London, 1819 (repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1963): 1-282.
Hierocles Phil. (A.D. 2), Fragmenta ethica = J. von Arnim, Hierokles. Ethische Elementarlehre (Papyrus 9780)
[Berliner Klassikertexte 4. Berlin: Weidmann, 1906]: 48-63.
Hippias Hist., Fragmentum = K. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (FHG) 4. Paris: Didot, 1841-1870:
431.
Hyperides Orat., In Demosthenem = C. Jensen, Hyperidis orationes sex. Leipzig: Teubner, 1917 (repr. 1963):
2-24.
Manetho Hist., Fragmenta = K. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (FHG) 2. Paris: Didot, 1841-1870:
526-616.
Memnon Hist., Fragmenta = K. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (FHG) 3. Paris: Didot, 1841-1870:
526-558.
Menander Comic., Fragmenta (Kock) = T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, vol. 3. Leipzig: Teubner, 1888:
3-152, 155-164, 166-241, 246-271.
Nicander Epic., Fragmenta (Gow & Scholfield) = A.S.F. Gow and A.F. Scholfield, Nicander. The poems and poetical
fragments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953: 138-166.
Nicolaus Hist., Fragmenta = K. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (FHG) 3. Paris: Didot, 1841-1870:
348-464.
Nymphis Hist., Fragmenta = K. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum (FHG) 3. Paris: Didot, 1841-1870:
13-16.
Pherecydes Phil. et Myth., Fragmenta = H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1, 6th edn.
Berlin: Weidmann, 1951 (repr. 1966): 47-51.
Philo Judaeus Phil., De providentia = F.H. Colson, Philo, vol. 9. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1941 (repr. 1967): 454-506.
Philo Judaeus Phil., Quaestiones in Genesim = F. Petit, Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca
[Les oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 33. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1978]: 41-81, 83-153, 155-160, 162-183,
185-213, 216-228.
Philo Judaeus Phil., Quaestiones in Exodum = F. Petit, Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca
[Les oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 33. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1978]: 233-278, 281-306.
Philo Mech., Belopoeica = H. Diels and E. Schramm, Philons Belopoiika [Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosoph.-hist. Kl. 16. Berlin: Reimer, 1919]: 7-68.
Philo Mech., Parasceuastica et poliorcetica = H. Diels and E. Schramm, Exzerpte aus Philons Mechanik B. VII
und VIII [Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosoph.-hist. Kl. 12. Berlin: Reimer,
1920]: 17-84.
Publius Aelius Phlegon Paradox., Fragmenta = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrH) #257.
Leiden: Brill, 1923-1958 (repr. 1954-1969): 2B:1160-1194; 3B:744-745 addenda.
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil., Fragmenta (Sandbach) = F.H. Sandbach, Plutarchi moralia, vol. 7. Leipzig: Teubner,
1967: 13-138.
Posidonius Phil., Fragmenta (Theiler) = W. Theiler, Posidonios. Die Fragmente, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1982:
16-72, 75-238, 242-244, 255-269, 279-280, 285, 290-297, 307, 310-346, 348-350, 354-357, 375-386.
Posidonius Phil., Fragmenta (Jacoby) = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrH) #87. Leiden:
Brill, 1923-1958 (repr. 1954-1969): 2A:225-317.
critical editions of fragmentary texts cited 443

Pythagoras Phil., Carmen aureum = D. Young (post E. Diehl), Theognis. Leipzig: Teubner, 1971: 86-94.
<Septem Sapientes> Phil., Sententiae = F.W.A. Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum, vol. 1. Paris: Didot,
1860 (repr. 1968): 215-216.
Simonides Lyr., Fragmenta (Page) = D.L. Page, Poetae melici Graeci. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962 (repr. 1967
(1st edn. corr.)): 238-241, 244-274, 276-318.
Sophocles Trag., Fragmenta (Radt) = S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, vol. 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1977: 99-120, 122-324, 326-338, 340-353, 355-380, 382-390, 392-435, 437-445, 447-484, 486-656.
Teles Phil., Περὶ συγκρίσεως πενίας καὶ πλούτου = O. Hense, Teletis reliquiae, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Mohr, 1909
(repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1969): 33-44.
Thales Phil., Testimonia = H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1, 6th edn. Berlin: Weid-
mann, 1951 (repr. 1966): 67-79.
Theopompus Comic., Fragmenta (Kock) = T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta, vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner,
1880: 733-756.
Tragica Adespota, Fragmenta (Nauck) = A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889 (repr.
Hildesheim: Olms, 1964): 837-958.
Vettius Valens Astrol., Anthologiarum libri ix (Kroll) = W. Kroll, Vettii Valentis anthologiarum libri. Berlin: Weid-
mann, 1908 (repr. 1973): 1-363.
Vettius Valens Astrol., Anthologiarum libri ix (Pingree) = D. Pingree, Vettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum libri
novem. Leipzig: Teubner, 1986: 1-348.
Vettius Valens Astrol., Appendices ad anthologiarum libros = D. Pingree, Vettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum
libri novem. Leipzig: Teubner, 1986: 369-433, 453-455.
Xenophanes Poet. Phil., Testimonia = H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1, 6th edn.
Berlin: Weidmann, 1951 (repr. 1966): 113-126.
444 critical editions of fragmentary texts cited
index of ancient texts 445

INDEX OF ANCIENT TEXTS

References are first to footnote numbers and then, if relevant, to pages and/or notes in either excursus.

JOSEPHUS, T. FLAVIUS

Judean War 1492, 1652, 1696, 1710, 1.58 1245

1 127, 155, 522, 1885, 1717, 1748, 1764, 1849, 1.59 1248
3353, 3447, 3518, 3673, 1901, 1902, 1933, 2053, 1.60 7, 2483, 2823
p.88 2075, 2125, 2490, 2524, 1.61 306
1-2 58, 174, 975, 1272, 1359, 2551, 2586, 2627, 2639, 1.63 264
1365, 1459, 1632, 1928 2655, 2660, 2664, 2708, 1.64-65 424
2709, 2723, 2744, 2746, 1.65 1183
1-3 1183, 1893 2753, 2763, 2773, 2787, 1.65-66 2827
1-4 2346 2801, 2811, 2868, 2908, 1.66 1195
1-5 2263, 2656 2968, 2981, 3167, 3189, 1.67 54, 3657
1-6 53, 181, 289, 295, 401, 3193, 3203, 3223, 3241, 1.68 982, 3383
1211, 1232, 1248, 2255, 3346, 3365, 3376, 3493, 1.68-69 518, 1570
2625, 2759, 2973, 3037, 3617, 3622, 3696, 3720, 1.70 26, 2097, 3058
3518 3771, 3817, 3827 1.70-71 1129
1-7 822, 2692 1.11 518, 522, 1570, 1662, 1.70-73 476
1.1 732 1755, 2122, 2494, 2623, 1.72 3657
1.1-2 1579 2881, 3302 1.73 1073
1.1-8 686, 1827, 3065 1.12 545, 613, 1244, 1485, 1.74 1259
1.1-12 p.86 1778, 2125, 2520, 2908, 1.76 264
1.1-16 3517 2944, 3054, 3302, 3610, 1.77-80 579, 1685
1.1-17 3408 3617 1.78 684, 686, 687, 740, 784,
1.2 2190 1.13-16 951, 2293 984, 2716, 3396
1.2-3 91, 1366, 1762 1.16 267 1.78-80 977, 978, p.90
1.3 7, 1038, 1256, 1667, 1.17 1733, 2597 1.80 108, 1068
2235, 2270, 2437 1.18 1828 1.81 88, 1091
1.4 4, 41, 55, 57, 76, 240, 1.19 1041, 2228, 2229, 2481, 1.82 649, 2815
427, 460, 822, 874, 2757 1.84 88, 158, 939, 947, 1068,
1398, 1633, 1660, 1743, 1.20 4, 21, 111, 235, 236, 1091, 3657
2552, 2688, 2956, 3646, 238, 243, 279, 1532, 1.85 20, 527
3802, 3809 1560, 1792, 2095 1.85-106 3580
1.4-5 2937 1.21 243, 1792, 2382, 3333 1.86 1570, 2828
1.4-12 3157 1.20-21 1792 1.87 2838, 2839
1.5 331, 332, 333, 619, 654, 1.21-22 264 1.88 1183, 2937
663, 688, 1163, 1634, 1.22 925, 3204, 3407, 3436 1.89-90 2269
2179, 2257, 2285, 2338, 1.23 688, 1151, 1901, 3281 1.90 1416, 1827
2351, 2569, 2752, 3669 1.23.5-6 1828 1.90-92 527
1.6 7, 91, 2430 1.26 980 1.93 236, 469, 2937
1.7 p.86 1.27 512, 1955, 1975, 2881, 1.95 2857
1.7-8 1366 3493 1.97 463, 1215, 2143
1.7-12 1239 1.28 2038 1.99 581
1.8 136, 222, 2364 1.30 140, 874, 1828, 2048 1.101 438, 644
1.9 44, 45, 47, 522, 542, 1.31 131, 1519, 1697, 2627 1.102 2857
1122, 1423, 1461, 1615, 1.31-33 p.85 1.103 1354
1680, 1764, 1798, 1817, 1.32 305 1.104 686, 2825, 2826, 3396
1827, 1885, 1976, 2001, 1.32-36 1766, 2080 1.105 3409, 3442
2015, 2122, 2133, 2135, 1.34 936, 1948, 2151, 2757 1.110 54, 893, 1003, 1004,
2222, 2584, 2860, 2870, 1.35 1977 1603
2881, 3028, 3217, 3302, 1.35-38 2209 1.110-12 20
3332, 3811 1.36 444 1.110-14 2583
1.9-10 26 1.38 551 1.111 30
1.9-11 91 1.39 2663 1.112 410
1.9-12 2011, 2189, 3699 1.42 1753 1.113 463, 1096, 1434, 1515
1.10 13, 43, 60, 74, 186, 192, 1.45 2857 1.117 1409, 1901, 2231
195, 236, 246, 287, 342, 1.50 581, 591, 3706 1.118 151, 270, 424, 3232
512, 545, 549, 1486, 1.56 356, 2829 1.119 1014
446 index of ancient texts

1.119-66 3481 1.215 2594 1.322 1256

1.120 356, 476, 926, 2231 1.216 1274, 3696 1.323 240, 356
1.120-32 232 1.216-19 2938 1.323-24 450
1.123-25 417 1.218-20 1295 1.329 316
1.125-58 2228 1.220-221 2546 1.331 356, 2805
1.127-31 1295 1.222 1183 1.334 429
1.129 306, 2823 1.223 524 1.335 356, 2176
1.133 2233 1.223-27 3058 1.336 2857
1.134 3168 1.225 1549 1.338 191, 3824
1.135 1254 1.225-37 417 1.341 2857
1.138 356 1.227 1442 1.342 2857
1.142 2229 1.232 2757 1.342-44 316
1.143 925, 3204 1.236 524 1.344 424
1.145 3232 1.237-38 112, 2560 1.347 1753
1.145-46 2483 1.239 416 1.350 2696
1.145-48 902 1.242 1295 1.352 317, 1416
1.146 1852, 2480 1.242-47 522 1.354-57 522
1.147 902 1.243 485, 705, 746 1.355 2151
1.149 1753 1.244 1549 1.357 3100
1.150 1530 1.245 1059, 1728 1.359 705, 746
1.152 306 1.248 1354 1.359-60 705
1.152-53 304 1.250 1195, 1445 1.361 356
1.153 2038 1.251 1753 1.364 112
1.154 33, 727 1.253 64, 259, 3254 1.364-66 316
1.155 2828 1.255-72 263 1.364-85 2269
1.156 108, 581, 583, 591, 1679, 1.260 842 1.365 410
1685, 2822, 2826, 2827, 1.261 402, 1822 1.368 3018
2839 1.263 264 1.369 1445, 3468
1.156-57 1681 1.264-66 112, 2560 1.370 429
1.157 2233 1.265 522, 3447 1.371 1241
1.159 306 1.266-67 264 1.372 522, 1827
1.160 2757 1.267 417 1.373 327, 1210, 2805, 3251
1.161 112 1.268 306 1.373-80 522
1.164 2838 1.269 193 1.374 2289
1.166 424, 591, 2827, 3409 1.270 515 1.376 2805
1.167 112 1.271 283 1.378 538
1.168 2052 1.272 283 1.380 1665, 2823
1.169 p.268 n.m 1.273 476, 1041 1.382 2803, 3147
1.170 134, 232, 264, 340, 1.277 429 1.383 1416
1285 1.278 1983 1.386 465, 1295
1.171-72 112 1.280 93 1.387 1112
1.172 1445 1.286 112, 3312 1.387-93 26
1.177 3432 1.287 1883 1.387-400 500
1.179 305, 306, 1295 1.288 157 1.393 2097
1.181 101, 523, 588, 600, 1.289 429 1.393-96 316
2969 1.292 112, 1753 1.396 561, 583, 1685, 2828,
1.182 p.86 1.292-93 561 2829, 2838, 2839
1.183 1295 1.293 316 1.396-97 2822
1.185 1354, 1360 1.293-94 112, 2560 1.397 1653
1.190-94 2998 1.295 1753 1.398 1354
1.191 2857, 3035 1.296 1883 1.398-99 362
1.191-92 3478 1.299-302 356 1.398-400 570, 571, 1352, 1353
1.198 60 1.300 524 1.399 33
1.201 3447 1.302 1511 1.399 571
1.202 3494, 3528 1.303 112, 424 1.400 151, 1295
1.203 264 1.304 2175, 3449 1.401 270, 291
1.204 341, 344, 523, 724, 1.304-6 3434 1.401-2 2655
1753 1.304-13 340 1.401-21 516
1.206 872 1.306 3039, 3478 1.402 116
1.207 22 1.308 600 1.402 272
1.208 3657 1.313 174 1.402 280, 1941, 2494
1.208-12 522 1.314 424 1.403 318, 424, 580, 814,
1.209 20, 158, 939 1.315-16 522 1848
1.210 1753, 2757 1.319 1473 1.403-04 424
1.213 740 1.320-22 316 1.404 572
1.214 2757, 2861 1.321 3084 1.404 2601
index of ancient texts 447

1.407 356 1.506 705, 746 1.628 2805, 3525

1.408 579 1.507 1660 1.629 94, 1087
1.408-15 108, 579 1.508 2052 1.630 3525
1.408-16 1684, 1685 1.514 327 1.630-1 1016
1.409 581 1.517 135 1.631 1322, 3541
1.412 1708, 2494 1.520 1892 1.633-34 3657
1.413-16 1689 1.521 535, 2805 1.635 934
1.414 1685, 1967 1.522 2176 1.637 989
1.415 1077, 1687 1.526 2821 1.637-38 94
1.416 2838 1.527 58, 514 1.638 1326
1.417 356, 2969, 2974, 3133 1.529 514 1.639-40 476
1.418 280, 281, 591, 2736 1.530 1800 1.640 23, 147
1.422 516, 592, 605, 3555 1.531 1919 1.641 1822
1.422-28 516, 2159 1.532 1289 1.644 201, 402, 1822
1.422-43 2874 1.533 197 1.645-46 23
1.425 291, 3447 1.535-37 23, 476 1.645-47 198
1.428 33, 1365 1.536-38 411 1.646 2, 23, 100, 110, 119,
1.431-655 522 1.537 40, 147, 3312 121, 131, 197, 201, 501,
1.432 1389 1.540-51 648 601, 674, 1162
1.433 476 1.544 1061 1.647 201
1.434 329 1.547 1515 1.648 20, 54, 71, 729
1.435 1129, 1389 1.548 931 1.648-50 522
1.436 705, 746 1.550-51 476, 608, 697, 1129, 1.648-55 43, 51, 71
1.436-44 705 1390, 1391 1.649 1409, 2716
1.437 356 1.550-52 23, 121 1.649-50 50
1.439 757, 9.85 1.551 424 1.649-59 1061
1.440 705, 746 1.552 695, 707, 989, 1125, 1.650 71, 729, 1061, 1062,
1.441 705, 746, 1167 1128, 1357 1232
1.442 705, 746 1.553 697 1.651 1409, 2682
1.444 705, 746 1.556 2805 1.652 59, 316
1.445 476 1.559 147, 227 1.655 71, 729, 1728
1.446 695 1.561 20 1.656 71, 198, 729
1.447 7 1.562 2, 100, 119, 234, 424, 1.657 316, 705
1.451 23, 26, 121 450, 501 1.659 271, 356, 1232, 2159,
1.451-52 608, 1390 1.562-63 596, 696 2868
1.451-60 217 1.563 597 1.659-60 271
1.452 232, 636, 1129, 1389, 1.566 155, 1033 1.660 169, 522, 533
1886, 3497 1.567 2289 1.661 672
1.457 23 1.570 178, 2605 1.662 198, 337, 469
1.458 377. 989 1.571 40, 147, 736, 2583 1.663-64 476
1.458-60 23, 121 1.573 23, 121 1.664 2, 23, 112, 119, 121, 122,
1.460 40, 1022, 2627 1.574 94 197, 199, 200, 202, 208,
1.460 1022 1.577 514, 1728 216, 501, 560, 1654
1.461 3468 1.578-81 600 1.666 35, 169, 271, 356, 1039,
1.463 3657 1.584 514 2159
1.467 476, 1389 1.584 1793 1.666-70 25
1.470 827, 1619 1.586 348 1.667 142
1.472-73 476 1.586 514 1.667-68 23, 121
1.473 93, 2821 1.587 989, 1614 1.667-69 93
1.474 3710 1.590 514 1.668 100, 119, 362, 501, 508,
1.476-77 695 1.592 514 560, 570, 574, 1353
1.478 127 1.598 1983 1.668-69 131
1.481 476 1.599 514, 2805 1.669 22, 23, 142, 217
1.484 705, 746 1.602 2, 100, 119, 501 1.670 1753
1.485 514 1.602-3 197 1.671 26
1.486 3756 1.606 1326 1.672 320, 1653, 1988, 2378
1.488 2032 1.607 2805 1.673 3468
1.490 1363 1.609 1883 2 53, 83, 104, 134, 181,
1.491 3468 1.615 2752 226, 236, 240, 262, 292,
1.492 58 1.616 639 331, 333, 360, 401, 408,
1.494 1956 1.617 1665 445, 501, 522, 603, 637,
1.495 645, 1733 1.617-40 111, 235 660, 666, 718, 801, 828,
1.496 3497 1.618 1092 973, 1038, 1067, 1108,
1.499-512 694 1.620 40, 147 1114, 1129, 1240, 1391,
1.500 3756 1.625 631, 2358 1437, 1456, 1489, 1498,
1.503 989 1.627 618 1508, 1523, 1557, 1614,
448 index of ancient texts

1632, 1638, 1651, 1676, 729, 1400, 1529, 1794, 2.26-38 479
1688, 1716, 1732, 1757, 1795 2.27 25, 26, 27, 58, 2097,
1799, 1811, 1859, 1898, 2.10-11 187, 448, 2627 2995
1913, 1976, 2012, 2020, 2.10-13 238 2.28 22, 1305, 1651
2045, 2067, 2073, 2094, 2.10-14 1241 2.29 39, 158, 174, 231, 261,
2222, 2254, 2267, 2498, 2.11 53, 58, 230, 276, 282, 939, 1064, 1065, 1104,
2522, 2522, 2579, 2584, 298, 309, 366, 533, 887, 1405, 1406, 1891, 1957,
2591, 2633, 2731, 2757, 1401, 1650, 1657, 1728, 2503
2775, 2805, 2815, 2860, 1987, 1993, 2113, 2549, 2.30 68, 87, 90, 211, 222,
2870, 2885, 2885, 2964, 2737, 2961, 3040, 3068, 441, 537, 1242, 1403,
3005, 3012, 3015, 3020, 3098, 3115, 3141, 3191, 1605, 1613, 2132, 2562,
3028, 3043, 3050, 3129, 3256, 3271, 3471, 3667 2792, 2817, 2906, 2972,
3143, 3166, 3167, 3216, 2.11-12 62, 156, 188 3051, 3688
3217, 3248, 3252, 3253, 2.12 185, 210, 215, 275, 387, 2.30-32 690
3255, 3280, 3303, 3332, 838, 1068, 1081, 1089, 2.31 143, 228
3335, 3351, 3353, 3408, 1213, 1435, 3130, 3299, 2.32 104, 105, 211
3484, 3499, 3514, 3538, p. 90 2.33 124, 133, 1125
3585, 3617, 3667, 3673, 2.12-13 211, 537 2.34 87, 214, 225, 537
3696, 3732, 3778, 3811, 2.13 85, 195 2.34-36 24, 183, 206, 228, 556
p.88 2.14 107, 119, 127, 142, 208, 2.35 23, 557, 1125
2-6 286, 2014, 2461, 2705, 397, 431, 789, 1029, 2.36 22, 2376, 2996
3032 3569 2.37 989
2.1 9, 32, 69, 74, 178, 267, 2.14-15 234 2.37-38 690
777, 778, 1066, 1256, 2.14-38 1125 2.38 546, 558, 589
1413, 1923, 2681, 3205 2.14-110 3 2.39 246, 396, 446, 478, 480,
2.1-2 532, 3058 2.15 155, 192, 204, 588, 840, 726, 1638, 1812, 2096,
2.1-13 533 989, 1125, 2022, 2102 2106, 2152, 2186, 2338,
2.1-110 671 2.16 95, 127, 138, 239, 245, 2439, 2540, 2593, 2871,
2.1-118 p.84 255, 397, 579, 1044, 3749, 3784
2.1-111 2753, p.88 1069, 1213, 1438, 1449, 2.39-42 237
2.2 36, 37, 105, 157, 163, 1508, 1527, 1677, 2093, 2.39-79 4, 26
170, 171, 173, 218, 228, 2637, 2776, 2834, 3101, 2.40 114, 250, 278, 279, 404,
230, 326, 475, 531, 633, 3569 406, 477, 1185, 1442
989, 1075, 1138, 1305, 2.16-17 459, 551 2.40-41 246, 389
1924, 2120, 2201, 2486, 2.16-18 235, 249, 1557 2.41 110, 118, 238, 316, 2048,
3679 2.16-19 238, 674 2211, 2336, 2769
2.2-3 226, 536, 539, 560, 666, 2.17 110, 117, 426, 158 2.42 3, 64, 161, 187, 1104,
690 2.17-18 249 1403, 1409, 1651
2.3 19, 156, 162, 353, 356, 2.17-19 110 2.42-43 448
1651 2.18 112, 244, 250, 478, 1186, 2.43 277, 330, 348, 356, 566,
2.4 12, 15, 18, 53, 166, 167, 1265, 1531, 1990, 3762 567, 576, 629, 1067,
168, 169, 178, 215, 230, 2.19 253 1192, 1437, 1452, 1551,
421, 488, 1143, 1429, 2.20 100, 125, 131, 207, 563, 1598, 1898, 3179, 3266,
1542, 1707, 1735, 1740, 564, 1030, 1126, 1690 3383, 3389, 3556
1888, 2109, 2428, 2434, 2.20-21 228, 557 2.43-79 236, 237
2924, 2930, 2941, 3228 2.20-22 496 2.44 2159, 3143, 3232
2.4-13 236 2.20-23 1154, 1156 2.45 328, 329, 389, 402, 459
2.5 13, 57, 74, 1633 2.20-25 479 2.45-46 316
2.5-6 71 2.20-39 29 2.46 303, 325
2.5-13 667 2.20-54 3340 2.47 316, 1696, 1838, 2970,
2.5-13 1061 2.21 132, 156, 228, 1619 3609
2.6 54, 59, 1114, 1217, 1231, 2.21-22 234 2.48 296, 1402, 2078, 2658,
1898, 1899, 2134 2.22 207, 228, 326, 481, 2725, 3533, 3237, 3283,
2.6-13 213 512, 548, 702, 718, 728, 3294, 3807
2.7 15 1285, 1287, 1637, 1901, 2.49 309, 1999, 2071, 2079,
2.8 38, 58, 75, 77, 82, 156, p.268 n.m 2685, 2727
160, 181, 230, 646, 2.23 953, 1125 2.50 568, 573, 587, 593, 727
1252, 1262, 1484, 1640, 2.24 127, 245, 397, 431 2.50 1099, 1100, 1362, 1845,
1709, 1858, 1960, 2337, 2.25 196, 227, 486, 487, 558, 1894, 1895, 2082, 2546,
2549, 2552, 3004, 3021, 699, 1033, 1046, 2085, 2571, 3374, 3552
3364, 3595, 3637, 3683 2177, 2498, 3585 2.51 54, 1399, 1747, 2920,
2.8-9 215 2.26 102, 158, 175, 209, 475, 3354
2.8-10 1403 939, 982, 989, 1125, 2.52 79, 126, 336, 361, 363,
2.8-12 3028 1690, 1927 393, 407, 434, 452, 454,
2.9 58, 1442 2.26-8 24, 183, 205, 222 455, 718, 1058, 1401,
2.10 7, 80, 90, 256, 258, 540, 2.26-33 128, 215, 496, 500 1474, 1475, 1525, 1701,
index of ancient texts 449

1704, 1848, 1872, 1873, 2.73 187, 240, 1256, 1403, 2.107 652, 653, 656, 1079,
1916, 1925, 1966, 1987, 2540, 2630, 2851 1869
1992, 2025, 2309, 2563, 2.73-4 242 2.108 714, 1742, 2194, 2592,
2777, 2835, 2886, 3068 2.74 318, 321, 473, 492, 497, 2661, 2884, 3531
2.53 134, 481, 728, 1883 1475, 1848, 3368, 3393 2.109 331, 642, 664
2.54 315, 333, 975, 2756, 2.75 150, 474, 721 2.110 331, 610, 620, 646, 675,
2876 2.75-76 440 3533
2.55 72, 358, 364, 370, 371, 2.76 426, 438, 551 2.110-17 2327
385, 403, 421, 454, 464, 2.76-77 462 2.111 105, 110, 180, 197, 424,
470, 473, 512, 639, 654, 2.77 337, 721, 3136 660, 1102, 1165, 2537,
663, 1163, 1715, 2195, 2.80 72, 134, 237, 396, 400, p.84
2569, 2667, 2707, 2928, 494, 498, 505, 718, 728, 2.111-16 3
3011, 3112, 3170, 3188, 1285, 1901 2.112 686, 690
3229, 3257, 3362, 3669 2.80-81 1810 2.112-13 977, p.91
2.80-97 29 2.113 740, 741, 756, 784, 979,
2.55-6 54 2.81 147, 148, 495, 804 990, 1634, 2257, 2825,
2.55-65 667 2.82 458, 485, 3657 2946, 3396
2.56 72, 354, 401, 422, 423, 2.83 99, 100, 114, 228, 481, 2.114 713, 1129, 1390, 2313
724, 788, 881, 1422, 562, 1150 2.114-16 758, 1391
1426, 1467, 1590, 1597, 2.84 521 2.115 710, 711, 713, 745, 746,
1602, 1727, 1753, 2718, 2.84-86 33 1730, 2277, 2414, 3031,
2742, 3123, 3124, 3445, 2.84-91 500 p.85
3449 2.85 510. 521 2.116 p.85
2.57 25, 26, 264, 266, 372, 2.86 541, 542, 1423, 1627, 2.117 107, 547, 723, 780, 1052,
375, 383, 384, 566, 2122 1054, 1179, 1376, 1494,
1490, 1551, 2097, 3389, 2.87 551 1548, 1724, 1978, 2156,
3394, 3823 2.87-88 989 2714
2.58 318, 369, 393, 403, 439, 2.88 512, 1183 2.117-18 341
455, 569, 1352, 1433, 2.89 87, 541, 2800 2.118 71, 730, 735, 767, 1379,
1475, 1848, 2493, 2507, 2.90 554, 1797, 2177, 3163, 1664, 1667, 2198, 2537,
2693, 3015, 3034, 3094, 3538 2542, 2711, 2713, 2715,
3117, 3712 2.91 60, 134, 544, 718, 728, 2756, 2762, 3409
2.58-59 321, 452 1285, 1410, 1469, 1866, 2.119 7, 382, 686, 730, 754,
2.59 72, 1050, 1585 1901, 2028, 2024, 3125 756, 767, 785, 877, 985,
2.60 26, 330, 349, 386, 926, 2.92 510, 546, 550 990, 1001, 1003, 1006,
1700, 2390, p.87 2.93 227, 575, 666, 670, 1021, 1025, 1601, 1604,
2.60-61 2753 p.84 2583, 3484, p.85, p.86,
2.61 387, 398, 1669, 3722 2.93-94 546, 547 p.87
2.62 336, 354, 454, 2097 2.93-100 144, 226, 229, 233, 506, 2.119-20 991
2.63 318, 380, 440, 441, 455, 690 2.119-21 p.85
1068, 1475, 1848, 1475, 2.94 1126, 1154, 1156 2.119-59 985, 1247
1848, 1925, 2776, 3200, 2.94-95 100, 501, 1029, 1030, 2.119-61 686, 3481, p.84, p.88,
3402, 3508, 3509, 3752 1150 p.89, p.90
2.63-64 321, 452, 667 2.95 348, 1044, 1352, 1353, 2.119-66 1003, p.84
2.64 3, 127, 431 1354, 1362, 1555, 1556 2.120 686, 708, 738, 755,
2.64-51 3375 2.95-100 145 857, 861, 898, 899, 985,
2.64-65 481 2.96 428, 668, 1549 p.90
2.65 396, 1662 2.96-97 1026 2.120-21 985
2.66 278, 405, 459, 913 2.97 108, 424, 621, 1362, 2.121 713, 839, 1563, 2008,
2.66-67 1185 1848, 2546, 2828, 2829, p.85
2.66-68 4 2835, 2839, 3102 2.122 730, 735, 926, p.85,
2.67 395, 414, 1189, 2832, 2.98 1033, 1036, 1037, 1987, p.86, p.90
2923, 3065, 3096, 3273 2836, 2922, 3397 2.122-23 p.85, p.87
2.67-68 321 2.100 1 2.123 12, 807, 831, 832, 855,
2.67-69 236 2.101 697, 875, 1129, 1390, 870, 899, 918, 2155,
2.68 424, 425, 432, 434, 1047, 2938 3547, 3548, p.85, p.90
3070, 3124, 3424, 3449 2.101-110 1391 2.124 735, 859, 915, 2939,
2.68-69 4, 467, 468 2.102 655, 657, 664 2988
2.69 127, 240, 318, 397, 435, 2.103 331, 618, 665, 1611 2.125 98, 735, 767, 837, 881,
460, 462, 551, 578, 580, 2.104 579, 632, 641, 1619, 1115, p.86
621, 668, 1940, 2835, 2753 2.126 870
3258, 3398 2.105 18, 262, 620, 626, 631, 2.127 760
2.70 388, 430, 1968, 3092, 1576, 2937 2.128 912, 953, 962, 2180,
3095, 3107, 3118 2.106 603, 625, 642, 1562, 2590, 3661, p.85
2.71 387, 430 1629, 1646, 3523, 3639, 2.128-33 918
2.72 3137 3645, 3668 2.129 772, 773, 803, 854, 855,
450 index of ancient texts

858, 998, p. 91 n.k 2.165 1009 1454, 1637, 1688

2.130 824, 1749, p.86 2.166 730, 742, 919, 2171, 2.185-203 718, 1061
2.131 780, 855 3484, p.86 2.185-205 p.85
2.132 918, 1600, 1749, 1862, 2.167 591, 594, 1049, 1154, 2.186 1122, 1265, 1616, 1798,
2663, 2804, 2905, 3686, 1156 1817
p.86 2.167-168 100, 152, 501, 1150 2.187 408, 1495
2.134 98, 780, 870, 890, 899, 2.168 172, 368, 572, 1057, 2.187-88 3070
918, 3446, p.86, p.87 1127, 1222, 1273, 1369, 2.188 408, 420, 1214, 1495
2.135 86, 864, 1387, 2472, 1532, 1585, 1824, 2830, 2.188-91 408
2785, p.90 3562 2.189 408, 1183
2.136 18, 687, p.87, p.90 2.169 318, 720, 721, 1098, 2.190 649, 1798, 3081
2.137 12, 730, 735, 777, 852, 1226, 1401, 1650, 2091, 2.191 1209, 1234, 3408
908, 909, 915, 924, 952, 2776 2.192 1215, 1243, 1865, 1973,
986, 998, 2993, p.90 2.169-74 2091 2491, 2521, 2911, 3049
2.137-38 919, 992, 994 2.169-77 p.85 2.192-93 1549
2.137-42 686, 899, 918 2.170 88, 181, 263, 1058, 1070, 2.192-98 1094
2.138 745, 754, 779, 810, 852, 1081, 1084, 1091, 1104, 2.192-203 721
886, 1074, 3483, p.86 1119, 1142, 1213, 1227, 2.193 1251, 1255, 1718, 2716,
2.139 799, 864, p.86, p.89, 1232, 1233, 1235, 1406, 3418, 3648
p.89 n.i 1501, 1860, 1914, 1957, 2.195 7, 1061, 1063, 1064,
2.139-42 842, p.85 2012, 2545, 2602, 2844, 1211
2.140 839, 843, 1171, p.85 3012, 3704, p.86 2.195-203 551
2.141 735, 881, 1623 2.170-74 1439 2.196 2092
2.142 730, 788, 2492 2.171 843, 1077, 1106, 1231, 2.197 188, 1180, 1226, 1651,
2.143 735, 767, 863, 916, p.85, 1438, 1865 2575, 2856, 2906, 2914,
p.86 2.171-72 1677 2972
2.145 935, p.87 2.171-74 1221 2.198 1096, 1215, 1246, 1248,
2.146 776, 3754, p.85, p.86 2.172 271, 645, 1089, 1106, 1440, 2520
2.147 1852, 2812, 3149 1107, 1118, 1367, 1942, 2.199 56, 1221, 1224, 1230,
2.148 804, 805, 853, 914, 915, 2159 1454, 1746, 2041, 3418
2600, p.85, p.90 2.173 1055, 1060, 1091, 1182, 2.200 1179, 1189, 1270
2.150 739, 779, 780, 899, 3484, 1226, 1337, 1959, 3055, 2.201 408
p.86 3685 2.202 1549
2.151 376, 759, 852, 919, 940, 2.174 88, 1058, 1068, 1081, 2.203 1258, 2216
1093, 1210, 2943, 3204, 1117, 1213, 1246, 1434, 2.204 1291, 1336, 1824
3408, 3485, p.85, p.90 2056, 2474 2.204-14 1272
2.151-53 860, p.86 2.175 181, 304, 305, 1059, 2.205 465, 1288, 1297, 1312,
2.151-58 p.85, p.86 1064, 1065, 1076, 1087, 1313, 1324, 1347
2.151-59 926 1109, 1116, 1142, 1406, 2.205-6 1327
2.152 896 1676, 1736, 1865, 2136 2.206 1296, 1305, 1336, 1348,
2.152-53 1094 2.175-76 1914, 1942 1996
2.153 158, 939 2.175-77 1894 2.206-13 1125, 1128
2.154 949, 1011 2.176 1076, 1089, 1798, 1903, 2.207 1277, 1962
2.155 852, 962, 963, 973, 1012, 2056, 2058, 3592 2.208 20, 527, 1312
1013, 2343, 2369, 2371, 2.176-77 1221 2.209 1307, 1322, 1323, 1330,
2389 2.177 1417, 2059 1637, 1668, 2748, 2750
2.156 747, 951, 953, 974, 1622, 2.177-420 3216 2.210 814, 823, 1600, 1862,
1741, 1959, 2213, 3243, 2.178 18, 697, 1166, 1289, 2182, 2513, 2663, 2804,
3408 1388, 1390, 2716 2805
2.156a 951 2.179 1971 2.211 1088, 1281, 1313, 2085
2.157 960, 961, 972, 973, 2.180 35, 1039, 1740, 3780 2.211-14 1990
1013 2.181 1134, 1273, 1294, 1305, 2.212 1347
2.158 327, 686, 966, 985, 978, 1353, 1370, 1427, 1532, 2.213 1088, 1790, 1922, 1991
p.91 1824, 3657 2.214-18 1125
2.160 686, 735, 767, 852, 985, 2.181-82 1386 2.215 362
p.86 2.182 331, 501, 3635 2.215 1150, 1370, 1556
2.160-61 749, 755, 756, p.85, 2.182-83 1125 2.216 1465, 1481, 2100, 3421,
p.86, p.87, p.94 2.183 1125, 1370 3649, 3724
2.161 735, 767, 854, 858, 862, 2.184 327, 872, 1181, 1229, 2.217 1372, 1381, 1383, 1388,
p.86 1261, 1335, 1440, 1572, 1552, 1582, 1986, 2101
2.162 730, 893 1734, 1815, 2354 2.218 1374, 2891, 3205
2.162-63 736 2.184-85 1258 2.218-19 2062, 3371
2.162-66 2583, p.85 2.184-87 547 2.219 1684
2.163 973, 1017, 1019 2.184-93 1451 2.220 240, 718, 720, 1364,
2.164 735, 767 2.184-203 1147 1379, 1393, 1549, 1739,
2.164-65 737 2.185 718, 1085, 1218, 1316, 1982, 3019, 3026, 3570
index of ancient texts 451

2.221 1357, 1392, 1395, 1552, 2.242 1545, 2927, 3138, 3400 2623, 3188
1582 2.243 1493, 1498, 1499, 1612, 2.265 1614, 1681, 1893, 1911,
2.222 697, 1129, 1581 1719, 1944, 2017, 2024, 3825
2.223 308, 720, 721, 1125, 2041, 2085, 2118, 2565, 2.265-70 1828
1421, 1446, 1534, 1549, 2566, 2580, 2581, 2631, 2.266 1180, 1686, 1700, 1706,
1550, 1552, 1553, 1582, 2651, 2695, 2698, 2740, 1718, 1820, 1821, 1830,
1825, 2558, 2948, 3026 3183, 3334, 3405, 3405, 2816, 2834, 2989, 3547,
2.224 67, 448, 1414, 1525, 3441 3634
1605, 1650, 1704, 1916, 2.243-44 1454, 1865 2.266-70 108 , 2815
2025, 2063, 2086, 2088, 2.243-46 1454 2.266-92 3101
2091, 2777, 3468 2.244 67, 485, 1401, 1450, 2.267 1491, 1614, 1949, 2029,
2.224-26 291 1532, 1540, 2113, 3272, 2567, 2933
2.224-27 1221 3471, 3734 2.267-68 1680, 1681
2.225 50, 603, 1108, 1693, 2.244-45 1396 2.267-70 3002
1837, 1865, 1866, 1950, 2.244-46 1704 2.268 1711, 1819, 1828, 1831,
2174, 2567, 3566, p.86 2.245 2538 1839, 1845, 1889, 2377,
2.226 1417 2.246 1525 2916, 3486
2.227 1525, 1645, 1796, 2060, 2.247 362, 721, 1352, 1394, 2.268-70 1840, 1876
3045, 3571 1396, 1584, 1568, 1569, 2.269 2777
2.228 3142, 3307, 3286, p.86 1982, 2558, 2830, 2948, 2.270 318, 1221, 1682, 1716,
2.229 1594, 1600, 1704, 1727, 2951, 3409 1820, 1397, 1626, 1785,
1739, 1762, 2227 2.248 1720, 1824 1800, 2219
2.229-30 2545 2.249 1536, 3639 2.271 2219
2.229-31 1877 2.249-51 1374 2.271-73 720
2.230 108, 263, 1096, 1452, 2.250 872, 1171, 1440 2.272 1769, 1777, 1969, 2567
1860, 1865 2.250-51 1172, 1563 2.273 33, 35, 721, 964, 1716,
2.231 1545 2.250-54 2648 1751, 1770, 2213, 2425,
2.232 668, 1541, 1549, 1655, 2.251 631, 1570, 3546 2434, 3243, p.86
2105, 3000 2.252 368, 594, 1125, 1386, 2.274 1489
2.232-44 318 1391, 1556, 1982, 2558, 2.274-76 1221
2.232-46 1396 2948, 3577, 3746 2.275 342, 380, 527, 1653,
2.233 263, 1249, 1461, 1483, 2.252-53 340 1741, 1753, 1805, 1814,
1533, 1859, 1865, 2020, 2.253 262, 342, 724, 1467, 1970, 2809, 3810
2027, 2185, 2212, 2584, 1477, 1643, 1663, 2545, 2.276 1780, 1930, 2801, 2490
2716, 2802, 3217 2720, 3218, 3266, 3556 2.277 721, 1732, 1733, 1809
2.233-38 2545 2.253-54 1663, 1726 2.277-78 2099
2.234 1453, 1454, 1471, 1474, 2.254 342, 1604, 1621, 1622, 2.277-332 2536
2100 1643, 1726, 2677, 2678 2.278 1626, 1725, 1800, 3519
2.235 594, 1480, 1591, 1595, 2.254-55 187, 728, 1115, 1647 2.278-79 2076
1671, 1878, 3069, 3111, 2.254-70 721 2.279 1783, 2080
3125, 3404, 3820 2.255 448, 618, 1089, 1604, 2.280 64, 67, 187, 1116, 1403,
2.236 108, 318, 1455, 1489, 1617, 1792, 2676, 2679, 1626, 1725, 1772, 1785,
1497, 1508, 1510, 1525, 2680 1817, 1827, 1903, 2095,
1533, 1704, 1848, 1873, 2.255-56 1604 2209, 3119, 3351
1883, 1926 2.256 1499, 1604, 1605, 1625, 2.280-81 721, 2103
2.237 1071, 1471, 1497, 1514, 1674, 1692, 1759, 1818, 2.280-82 2105
2100, 2525, 3049 2848, 2861 2.281 527, 1757, 1850
2.238 1250, 1693, 1747, 1837, 2.257 143, 1608, 2971 2.281-83 2600
1949, 2029, 2567, 2933, 2.258 518, 964, 1663, 1678, 2.282 2095
3188, 3362 1725, 1753, 1785 2.282-83 2642
2.239 408, 1450, 1465, 1517, 2.258-60 1800 2.283 1614, 1632, 1757, 1798,
1519, 1523, 1531, 1670, 2.259 41, 158, 688, 969, 1647, 1805, 1827, 2023
1717, 1745, 1841, 1999, 1663, 1666, 1668, 1811, 2.283-332 1808
2016, 2024, 2085, 2555, 1933, 2023, 2177, 2191, 2.284 1394, 1553, 1682, 1721,
2576, 2580, 2633, 2651, 2223, 2238, 2262, 2299, 1825, 2010, 2573, 2702,
2695, 2831, 3022, 3183, 2317, 2353, 2363, 2748, 2738, 3201, 3330, 3331,
3218, 3334, 3415, 3551, 3188, 3556, 3563, 3639, p.86
3581, 3648, 3804 3812 2.284-85 1681, 2815
2.239-40 1810, 1865 2.260 2573 2.284-92 108, 1677
2.239-44 718, 721 2.261 1419, 1622, 1637, 1641, 2.284-93 2815
2.240 1520, 1522, 1523, 1533, 1661, 3381, 3639 2.285 1698, 1798, 1817, 1832,
1914, 2024, 2041, 2716, 2.261-63 1604 1854, 1912, 2196, 2398,
3369 2.262 1663, 1756, 2721, 3378, 2596, 2834
2.240-46 2209 3796 2.285ff. 1819
2.241 108, 463, 1478, 1508 2.263 1445, 1823 2.285-86 1828
2.241-43 1221, 3418 2.264 342, 1316, 1637, 1642, 2.285-86 1861
452 index of ancient texts

2.286 1409, 1491, 1700, 1784, 2.316 1456, 1519, 2020, 2027, 2.344-407 1272, 1373
1828, 1832, 1855, 1856, 2037, 2039, 2040, 2203, 2.345 1022, 1955, 2199, 2531,
1867, 1876, 1950, 1976, 2581, 2604, 3023, 3606 2535, 3020, p.84
2222, 2584, 2860, 2870, 2.317 104, 2008, 2021, 2101 2.345ff. 1983
3028, 3217, 3332, 3811 2.318 1523, 1632, 1811, 1916, 2.345-47 p.266, p.267
2.286-87 1851 2026, 2041, 2089, 2092, 2.345-58 2044
2.287 1698, 1831, 1836, 1876, 2642, 2716, 2819, 3168 2.345-401 134
1882, 1887, 1895, 1915, 2.318-25 1922 2.345-404 1256
3277, 3453 2.319 2057 2.346 1322, 1409, 2158, 2169,
2.287-88 1828 2.319-29 318 2172, 2191, 2264, 2290,
2.288 833, 1489, 1747, 1854, 2.321 2604 2373, 2384, 2463, 2528
1875, 1884, 1894, 1909, 2.322 2581, 2716, 3606, 3607 2530, 2531, 2532, 3818
1932, 2819 2.323 2196, 2218 2.346-401 p.265
2.289 1834, 1835, 1849, 1868, 2.325 2007, 2021, 2031 2.347 1859
1870, 1891, 1891, 1902, 2.303 1456, 1693 2.348 720, 728, p.268
2478 2.320 2060 2.348-52 1900
2.290 645, 1079, 1409, 1445, 2.320-21 62 2.348-57 2188, p.266, p.267
1696, 1837, 1849, 1854 2.321 7, 2019, 2032, 2055, 2.349 527, 2223, 2225, 2227,
2.291 1705, 1840, 1846, 1849, 2570 2246, 2264, 2290, 2356,
1926, 1987, 2600, 3109, 2.322 1482, 1498, 1523, 2018, 2373, 2384, 2399
3214, 3274 2024, 3607 2.349-80 1183
2.292 1841, 1842, 1877, 1894, 2.324 1256, 2336 2.350 18, 870, 1924, 2019,
1909, 1915, 1932, 2121, 2.324-25 2060 2044, 2604
2819 2.325 1108 2.350-57 1239
2.293 181, 304, 305, 306, 1406, 2.325-26 2044 2.352 964, 1237, 1256, 1859,
1673, 1788, 1823, 1845, 2.326 1089, 1115, 1117, 1121 p.268
1858, 1894, 1932, 2076, 2.328 1788, 2074, 2076, 2077, 2.352-54 2548
2157, 1642, 2819, 3660 2081, 2703, 3041, 3205, 2.353 1488
2.294 44, 263, 1911, 1918, 3206 2.354 527, 1397, 2045, 2268,
1929, 1933, p.87 2.328-29 3209 2559, 3697
2.295 1116, 1897, 1932, 2962 2.328-31 3232 2.355 2193, 2399, p.266,
2.296 318, 1990, 2089, 2092, 2.329 292, 294, 1941, 2094, p.268
2642, 2819, 3351 2267, 2706 2.355-57 728, 727, 1935, 2193,
2.297 15, 18, 2130 2.330 291, 2073, 2538 2353
2.298 158, 939, 1873, 1903, 2.330-31 295, 2063, 2539, 2543, 2.357 1223, 2270, 2272, 2437
1936, 2819, 3469 2703 2.357-58 p.268
2.298-99 1910 2.331 304, 305, 1100, 1788, 2.358 2292
2.300 1995, 3056 2064, 2079, 2088, 2119, 2.358-61 2292
2.301 318, 429, 1498, 1519, 2544 2.358-61a 2236
1523, 1994, 2024, 2041, 2.332 1401, 2025, 2089, 2556 2.358-87 p.266
2065, 2073, 2074, 2581, 2.333 104, 718, 1808, 2022, 2.358-99 p.267
2697, 3209 2067, 2127, 2209, 2893 2.357-401 1225
2.301-8 2123 2.333-34 1359 2.360 1073, 2147, 2273, 2280,
2.303 1409, 1491, 1693 2.334 62, 465, 2113, 2115, 2288, 2302, 2348, 2354,
2.304 964 2950 2390, 2401, 2417, 2455,
2.304-5 3005 2.335 78, 1983, 2131, 2149, 2459, 2510, 2751, 3489
2.305 53, 1994, 2013, 2137, 2428, 3272, 3471 2.361 728, 2275, 2436
2138, 2549, 2686, 3209 2.335-407 1125 2.361-64 2236, 2292
2.305-6 318 2.336 2085, 2581, 2696 2.361-65 2193
2.305-10 2089 2.337 2502, p.268 2.362 2220, 2230, 2235, 2437,
2.306 527, 1733, 1757, 1777, 2.337-38 2643 2559
1805 2.338 2448 2.363 2266, 2368, 2371, 2386,
2.307 1215 2.339 1108 2389
2.308 463, 1221, 1302, 1942, 2.340 1975, p.266 2.364 2320, 2339, 2345
2819 2.340-41 2108, 2111 2.365 727, 728, 2287, 2379,
2.309 1125, 1378, 2116, 2428, 2.341 2145, 2571, 2589, 2611, 2399, 2419, p.268
2433, 2448, 2451, 2980 2655, 2751 2.365-87 2236
2.310 1994, 2000 2.342 1810, 2198, p.266 2.366 1073, 2147, 2258, 2284,
2.310-12 318 2.342-43 2207, 2209, 2535 2297, 2319, 2365, 2395,
2.310-14 1359, 2101 2.342-44 2167 2409, 2508
2.311 1821 2.343 1673, 1772, 2183, 2209, 2.367 1183
2.312 1341, 1938, 1940, 1966 2535, 2642, 2645 2.367-70 p.268
2.313 7, 1985 2.343-405 62 2.368 727, 728, 2300, 2301,
2.314 2000, 2054 2.344 154, 271, 1344, 1987, 2309
2.315 263, 1067, 1826, 1961, 1994, 2085, 2653, 2912, 2.369 2295, 2330, p.267
3062 3208, 3733 2.370 2327
index of ancient texts 453

2.371 1254, 2281, 2386 2.405 727, 1359, 1987, 2079, 2.434 347, 1653, 2627
2.371-72 2285 2537, 2542, 2557, p.267 2.435 299, 3285
2.373 1171, 1223, 1301, 1335, 2.406 53, 2216, 3747 2.435-36 3239
1572, 2259, 2354, 2383, 2.407 57, 727, 2537, 2577, 2.437 317, 2627, 2648, 2778,
2472, 3306, 3488 2591, 2622, 2632, 2636, 2790, 2796, 2977, 2978,
2.373-74 727, 728 2646, 3027, 3822 3341, 3344
2.374 2266, 2281, 2374, 2411, 2.408 2220, 2708, 2717, 2718, 2.437-38 3186
2415 3828 2.437-39 3343
2.375 2177, 2266, 2279, 2362, 2.408-9 1522, 1948, 2147 2.438 315, 2354, 2778
2418, 2427, p.267, 2.408-16 2147 2.439 2780, 2786
p.268 2.408-18 1521 2.441 1521, 2699, 2711
2.376 219, 1700, 2286 2.409 331, 1240, 1409, 1491, 2.442-243 137
2.376-77 2351 1638, 1693, 1823, 2599, 2.443 728, 1316, 1836, 2755,
2.377 376, 2294, 2357, 2427, 2616, 2626, 2631, 2698, 2756, 3188
p.267, p.268 2740 2.443-46 1521
2.377-79 2177 2.409-10 1240, 2676, 2708, 2747, 2.443-50 1883
2.378 953, 2281, 2340, 2427 2774, 2783, 3387 2.444 79, 2766, 3377
2.378-79 2280 2.410 57, 1498, 1523, 2024, 2.445 71, 729, 2771, 2774,
2.378-80 2283 2041, 2552, 2568, 2716 3558
2.380 1073, 2147, 2258, 2509, 2.411 736, 1456, 1498, 1519, 2.446 2115
3470 2523, 2024, 2041, 2576, 2.447 724, 2559, 2560, 2711,
2.381 262, 2370 2620, 2655, 2716, 3181, 3242, 3828
2.382 2279, 2294, 2371, 2379, 3228 2.447-48 3828
2429 2.412 647, 2176, 2553 2.448 2633, 2655, 2752
2.383 33, 2446, 2447, 2537, 2.413 2598, 2610 2.449 2045, 2757, 2758, 2772
3031 2.414 2019, 2594, 2629 2.450 1705, 2731, 2774, 2791
2.384 1223, 2420, 2423 2.416 2001, 2574, 2675 2.450-51 2789
2.385 33, 1983, 2116, 2235, 2.417 57, 1638, 1662, 2552, 2.450-52 2977
2263, 2270, 2336, 2426, 2573 2.450-53 2561, 2735, 3186, 3344
2455, 2537, 2980 2.418 74, 445, 2540, 2608, 2.450-56 315, 3343
2.386 2340, 2386, 2435 2640, 2700, 2723, 2730, 2.451 1728, 2578, 2655, 2789,
2.387 870, 1254, 2235, 2259, 2981, 3337, 3338, 3342, 3368, 3731, 3732
2292, 2354, 2438, 3029 3351 2.451-53 842
2.388 2254, 2278, 2509, 3160, 2.418-23 62 2.452 2505, 2779, 2791, 3614
3296 2.419 2180 2.452-56 315
2.388-39 2394, p.266 2.420 3216, 3815 2.453 1883, 2505
2.388-401 2458, p.266 2.421 1987, 1988, 2126, 2127, 2.454 188, 536, 2853, 3358
2.389 2176, 2460, 2477, 2484, 2158, 2522, 2634, 2796, 2.455 1456, 1635, 1757, 2796,
2485, 2813, 3160 2948, 3162, 3339, 3340 2799, 2814, 2815, 2905,
2.390 843, 870, 2354, 2509, 2.422 1519, 2581, 2650, 2659, 3551
3247, p.268 2765, 3814 2.455-57 2853
2.390-92 902 2.422-24 2710 2.456 902, 1852, 2465, 2479,
2.391 2467, 2888 2.423 293, 2683 2480
2.392 1852, 2666, 3754 2.424 1320, 2479, 2804, 2905, 2.457 108, 1677, 1679, 1680,
2.392-93 2814, 3150 2126 1704, 1728, 2512, 2519,
2.393 2467, 2757 2.425 187, 1403, 1604, 1606, 2805, 2834, 2841, 2877,
2.394 2467, 2801 2669, 2684, 2688, 2701, 2890, 2965, 3101, 3216,
2.395 1215, 1487, 2521 2708, 2711 3360, 3557
2.396 143, 174, 352, 2598, 2.425-26 1608 2.457-60 1823
3337 2.426 1359, 1987, 2617, 2668 2.457-98 2519
2.397 2789, 3614, 3778 2.426-27 1597, 2653 2.458 2519, 2863, 2946
2.397-640 2505 2.426-28 2665 2.458-59 2935
2.398-99 2840 2.427 1489, 2676, 2689, 2708 2.458-60 1823, 2518, 2843, 2846,
2.399 1322, 2182, 2696 2.428 1519, 2581 2921, 2938, 3547
2.400 1215, 1245, 1487, 2644, 2.428-32 3340 2.458-61 2942
3146, 3327, 3721 2.429 1521, 2740, 2743, 3343, 2.459 2922, 2923, 2926, 2931,
2.400-1 p.266, p.267 3537 3551
2.401 2158, 2176, 2183, p.268 2.430 328, 2670, 2671, 3232 2.461 2890, 2936
2.402 2160, p.266, p.267 2.430-31 272 2.461-65 1616, 3537
2.402-5 2158 2.430-37 2634 2.461-78 2512
2.403 295, 305, 445, 727, 2079, 2.430-40 315 2.461-80 3547
2546, 2557, p.266 2.431 2719, 3343 2.461-86 3361
2.403-4 2426, p.266 2.433 71, 723, 724, 728, 729, 2.463 2511, 2794, 2795, 2846,
2.403-5 306, 727 2560, 2623, 2762, 3022, 2875, 2932, 2940, 2942
2.404 33, 2079, 2696, 3351 3828 2.464 1716, 2516, 2857, 2887,
2.404-5 33 2.433-34 2559, 3828 3490
454 index of ancient texts

2.465 2870, 3049 2.505 3015, 3107, 3118 2.549 1114, 2909, 3310, 3248
2.466 2875, 2888 2.506 3079, 3253 2.550 2358, 3180, 3278, 3318
2.466-76 2827 2.507 3131 2.551 3303, 3320
2.467 1022, 2860, 2889, 2918 2.507-9 1878 2.551-55 84
2.468 2817, 2827, 3033, 3116, 2.508 3118 2.552 356
3215 2.509 594, 1878, 2879, 2928, 2.553 2723, 3171, 3279, 3280,
2.469 2892, 2919, 3061 3015, 3107, 3257 3284, 3285, 3806
2.470 323, 324, 2857, 3003 2.510 1792, 3066, 3087, 3095 2.554 2522, 3372, 3380
2.471 1088, 1365, 2515, 2817, 2.510-12 3424 2.556 2499, 2648, 2913, 2948
2866 2.511 15, 340, 1047, 1469, 2.556-58 2634, 3242
2.472 2151, 2866, 2888, 2918 3084, 3449 2.557 3256
2.474 2915, 3048, 3305 2.512 293, 3252 2.558 1767, 3216, 3331
2.475 1215, 1700, 2902 2.513 3325 2.559 308
2.476 1248, 1344, 1700, 2161, 2.514 469 2.559-61 2512
2872, 2881, 2898, 2906, 2.514-17 187, 1403 2.560 1632, 2511, 2852, 2853,
2908, 3335, 3482, 3486 2.515 2115, 3088, 3133 2875
2.477 308, 2836, 2938, 2941, 2.516 1425, 3145, 3168, 3173, 2.561 2817, 2890, 3555
3070 3178, 3195, 3201, 3275, 2.562 136, 1256, 1823, 2794,
2.477-78 2830 3400 3620, 3805
2.477-80 2822, 3557 2.517 1691, 1852, 2480, 2522, 2.562-63 56, 2783
2.478 1515, 1693, 2851, 2921, 3147, 3165, 3808 2.562-64 1792
2983, 3016, 3036, 3257 2.517-18 902, 2479 2.563 450, 1499, 2781, 3803
2.479 923, 1210 2.518 902, 3168, 3270 2.564 304, 1653, 2754, 3324,
2.479-80 2517 2.519 3382, 3479 3366, 3379, 3380
2.480 2519 2.520 2462, 3388, 3671 2.565 1642
2.481 2818, 2966, 3077, 3570 2.521 1425, 2825, 2928, 3145, 2.566 3620
2.481-83 2830, 3075 3235, 3265, 3276, 3291, 2.567 430, 450, 594, 686, 740,
2.482 2818 3376, 3291, 3324, 3821 784, 1511, 2579, 2825,
2.483 104, 1908, 2951, 2952, 2.522 158, 939 p.91
3570 2.522-23 3194 2.568 450, 724, 784, 1472,
2.484 2977 2.523 262, 2587, 3228, 3308 1521, 1567, 3436, 3441,
2.485 2833 2.524 3188, 3655 3444
2.486 2731 2.525-26 3570 2.569 37, 3620
2.487 2937, 2990, 3001, 3058 2.526 3182, 3225 2.571-72 892
2.487-98 2512 2.526-27 3198 2.572 1567
2.487-99 1983 2.527 3173, 3176 2.573 3407, 3577, 3627, 3746,
2.488 164, 852, 3035 2.528 3174, 3259 3772
2.489 1445, 2885, 2981 2.529 925, 3485 2.574 340, 3739
2.490 263, 1067, 2928, 3009, 2.530 1366, 2062 2.575 3409, 3515, 3516, 3517,
3257 2.531 2757, 3245, 3271 3544
2.490-98 1378 2.531-34 1793 2.576 3500, 3590, 3705
2.491 3018, 3034 2.532 1456, 3351 2.577 1254, 3458
2.492 2937, 3009, 3015, 3053 2.533 1596 2.579 3156
2.493 58, 2019, 2180, 2604 2.533-34 3211 2.580 860, 925, 1248, 1700,
2.493-94 62, 87, 3018 2.533-35 3208 2254, 2917, 3204, 3482,
2.494 57, 2552, 2879, 3015, 2.534 3192 3534
3042, 3053 2.535 2928, 3211, 3228, 3257 2.581 866, 1490, 1963
2.495 2937, 2992, 2996, 2998 2.536 291 2.581-82 865, 876
2.496 1416, 2859, 3090 2.537 2726, 3166 2.583 1988, 3458, 3536, 3590,
2.497 191, 2840, 3769 2.538 964, 3249 3598, 3752
2.498 1937, 3056, 3794 2.539 870, 964, 3211 2.585 747, 1787, 2633, 3542,
2.499 2009 2.539-40 1793 3703
2.499-55 1792 2.540 3303, 3310 2.585-94 3453
2.499-502 2949 2.540-43 3168 2.586 3639
2.499-555 2156 2.541 2928, 3097, 3129, 3256, 2.587 342, 3517, 3542, 3546,
2.500 3120, 3271 3282, 3291, 3345 3677
2.500-1 3113, 3231 2.542 429, 1648, 3256 2.587-89 3660
2.500-2 409, 3313 2.542-56 1425, 3142 2.588 1248, 2917, 3499, 3560,
2.501 2952, 3066 2.543 262, 1598, 3166 3715
2.502 409, 1207, 3099, 3140, 2.544 1705, 1872, 3144, 3151, 2.589 546, 3560
3177, 3570 3171, 3212, 3213, 3256 2.590 3454, 3521
2.502-6 408 2.545 3295, 3301, 3308, 1425, 2.590-92 3529
2.503 420, 1194, 3121, 3122 2723, 3171, 3276, 3806 2.590-94 3664
2.503-4 1194 2.546-55 1823, 3168 2.591 3518, 3660
2.503-6 3424 2.547 3255 2.592 262, 1495, 1598
2.504 420, 3043, 3139 2.548 3277, 3301, 3324 2.593 342, 1490, 2757, 3564
index of ancient texts 455

2.594 1041, 1632, 3558, 3588 2.645 1653, 2775, 3710, 3795, 1511, 3110, 3392, 3397,
2.595 1191, 1359, 1987 3800, 3801 3400, 3402
2.595-609 1428 2.646 1596 3.55 264, 430, 1472, 1549,
2.596 1586, 3783 2.648 1519, 2581 3398, 3403
2.596ff 1567 2.648-53 1499 3.56 3401, 3409, 3441
2.597 1836, 3626 2.648-54 3369 3.59 429
2.598 143, 3576, 3586, 3601, 2.649 1757, 2808, 3147 3.60 1883
3612, 3675 2.649-51 3805 3.61 3161
2.599 3385, 3590, 3603, 3648, 2.650 1631, 2642, 2652 3.64-65 408
3659, 3664, 3665, 3746 2.651 2183, 2754, 3363, 3377, 3.64-69 4
2.599-613 3674 3805 3.65 1185
2.601 1482, 2018, 3692 2.652 57, 594, 1472, 2552, 3.66 318, 1987
2.602 2505, 3624 3538 3.66-69 3065
2.603 158, 939, 3507 2.652-54 3167 3.68 79, 1987, 2952, 3071,
2.604 3609, 3628, 3633, 3740 2.653 2560 3072, 3074, 3077, 3078
2.605 179, 3408 2.654 1968, 3202 3.69 290
2.605-21 1983 2.901-92 p.268 n.m 3.70-109 3147, 3463
2.606 3633, 3636, 3767 3 3065, 3408 3.71 2355
2.606-609 3772 3-4 241 3.72 2813
2.606-610 3433 3.1-2 3348 3.74 457, 3264
2.608-9 3746 3.1-4 1792 3.76-77 1348
2.609 883, 1157, 3633 3.1-8 3348 3.80 3323
2.610 1646, 3655, 3668 3.2 136, 2416 3.82 429
2.610-11 3524 3.6 2002 3.83 3468
2.611 179, 3668 3.7 2052 3.85 429, 925, 3204
2.612 18, 3676, 3790 3.9 1792, 3348 3.86 833, 3476
2.612-13 3665 3.9-28 2836 3.86-87 3316
2.613 3187, 3641, 3768 3.10 2836 3.86-88 2026
2.614 1896, 3677, 3679, 3698, 3.11 686, 740, 784, 3162, 3.87 3316, 3468
3725 3388, 3396, 3671, p.91 3.87-88 3466, 3470
2.614-25 3565, 3656, 3746 3.14 647 3.88 467, 1078, 3462, 3474,
2.615 331, 3514, 3524, 3162, 3.15 3055, 3462 3475
3665 3.16 3299 3.89 429, 3055
2.617 18, 3660, 3663 3.17 2515 3.89-91 3476
2.618 58, 3591 3.19 3162, 3671, p.91 3.90 1348
2.619 1088, 2856, 3751 3.20 3388 3.92 3462
2.620 2207, 2775, 3514 3.22 647 3.93 457, 467, 3312
2.621 2206 3.25 3388 3.93-97 457
2.622 1067, 3514 3.27 3650 3.96 407
2.622-23 3695 3.27-28 3388 3.97 136
2.624 1596, 1716 3.28 136 3.98-100 3264, 3463
2.625 3537, 3565, 3768 3.29 114, 408, 3349 3.98-107 302
2.626 2522, 3656 3.29-30 1190 3.100 467
2.626-31 3717 3.30 1947 3.101 2355
2.628 2578, 2655, 2769, 2782, 3.31 1254, 3119 3.102 3463
2783 3.33 240 3.102-6 3462
2.630 3620 3.33-34 3122 3.104 3056
2.632 3785, 3797 3.35 420, 2833 3.105 467, 3477
2.632-34 3648 3.35-36 1190 3.105-7 3264, 3463
2.632-46 3577 3.35-43 264, 1190 3.106 2099
2.633 2550 3.35-44 3407, 3436 3.106-7 2355, 3461, 3463
2.634 1852, 2479, 2775, 3695, 3.35-58 7 3.107 2276
3764, 3783 3.37 3441 3.108 57
2.635 902, 3779 3.38 420, 1190, 1194, 3085, 3.100 804
2.635-37 3317 3087 3.110 408
2.636 3787 3.39 1191, 3427 3.111 3084
2.637 3052 3.39-40 2831, 3537 3.111-12 784
2.638 1157, 3638, 3699 3.40 3440 3.113 1215, 3147
2.638-41 3648 3.44-47 348 3.115 408, 804
2.639 1312 3.46-47 2823 3.115-26 3168
2.640 2505 3.47 2824, 2826 3.115-28 457
2.641 3597 3.48 594, 1448, 1472, 1549 3.116 409
2.642 3765 3.49 2410 3.120 407
2.643 1753 3.53 1549 3.121 3322
2.644 1088 3.54 408, 3392 3.122 1705
2.644-45 3785 3.54-55 388, 591, 594, 1035, 3.123 1058
456 index of ancient texts

3.124 409, 3168 3.331 552 3.477 1464

3.125 3171 3.334 1151 3.479 647, 2662, 3462
3.126 3169 3.336 1883 3.484 1665
3.133 3348 3.340 136 3.485 2805
3.135-37 3363 3.341 2805 3.495 3622
3.141-339 3426 3.343 3168 3.498 647, 3596
3.143 1549 2.346 2099, 2388, 2513, 2595, 3.527 3790
3.144 530 2618, 3350 3.528 308
3.149 647 2.349 2388, 2506 3.436 136
3.151 2657 2.355-57 2236 3.447 57
3.153 1665 3.351 2471, 3247 3.452 377, 1005
3.153-54 284 3.351-53 678 3.459 15
3.155 2682 3.351-54 870 3.467 925, 3204
3.157 3084 3.352 2620 3.472-88 276
3.158 3300 3.354 2259, 2305, 2354, 2527, 3.475 376
3.161 647, 2662 2562 3.488 925, 3204
3.166 3284 3.356 376 3.496 1022
3.166-68 3284 3.357 376, 926, p.87 3.500 3497
3.171-76 3620 3.359 136, 2354, 3562 4 158, 637, 2227, 2522,
3.173 3238 3.360 1253 2754, 3408, 3673, 3821
3.175 1248 3.362-82 p.265 4.2 784, 3443
3.176 647 3.363 543 4.2-10 3409, 3410
3.177 1490 3.367 2291 4.4 3441
3.180 895 3.368-69 2499 4.4-8 1190
3.184 804, 833 3.372 944, 947 4.5 3608
3.186 1363 3.375 1012, 2495 4.7 299
3.186-92 3620 3.377 376, 804 4.8 552, 953, 3300
3.188 3699 3.378 3790 4.9 3455
3.193 1363 3.380 2416 4.10 2682
3.197 179 3.382 939 4.12 784
3.201 2859 3.385 3688 4.12-13 2627
3.203 56 3.386 136, 3238 4.15 2030
3.207 2099 3.389 1009 4.16 2143
3.208 3039 3.390 136 4.17 1210
3.211 1442 3.391 1320, 1321, 2473, 2868 4.18 2639
3.222 1251 3.393 1060 4.19 1665
3.226 3322 3.393-97 2794 4.20 3476
3.228 647 3.395 1060 4.28 3315
3.229-30 276 3.396 323, 870, 1009 4.31 1985
3.230 3322 3.399 701 4.34 1248, 2805, 2917
3.239 1665 3.400 136, 2528 4.36 461, 953
3.245 1883 3.400-1 870 4.45 467
3.246 3151 3.402 67 4.45-6 302
3.251 3675 3.404 870 4.49 1215
3.261 1215, 3719 3.405 979 4.51 3158
3.267 3254 3.409 408, 1549 4.54-61 3432
3.268 3168 3.410 15, 1108 4.60 843
3.278-79 339 3.414 3348 4.63 3239, 3675
3.283 2084 3.414-27 2265, 3401 4.71 1215, 1691
3.289 784 3.416 2311 4.76 2805
3.290 3084 3.418 2310 4.79 3239
3.293 2471, 3018, 3247 3.432 1827 4.82 2859
3.300 3478 3.435 765 4.84 1947
3.302 923, 1210, 3084 3.438 2259 4.85 1642
3.308 2176, 2180 3.445 2180 4.90 647
3.309 428, 1098, 3026 3.446 2827 4.92 784
3.310 1705 3.469 2310 4.92-120 3532
3.313 1289 3.450 1662 4.92-130 3452
3.314 465 3.450-52 3596 4.95 728
3.318 895 3.452 647, 1005, 2662 4.96 2227, 3719
3.319 3675 3.456 534 4.99 2518
3.320 748, 895, p.90 3.457 3596 4.99-103 902
3.320-21 933 3.458 1947 4.101 3312
3.321 2768 3.461 465 4.101-6 3664
3.321-23 1466 3.467 3596 4.105 2831, 3537
3.232 1344 3.475 376, 926, p.87 4.113 3632
index of ancient texts 457

4.114 57 4.228 728, 3562 4.355 104

4.114-22 518 4.231 2518, 3147, 3808 4.357 2174
4.116 983 4.234 728 4.357-65 3829
4.117 3632 4.236-344 1256 4.358 2261
4.119 3699 4.238 3368 4.359-64 3388
4.120 57, 883, 1947, 2682 4.238-69 p.265 4.362 1363
4.123 2176 4.240 2165, 2176 4.362-63 1622
4.127 158, 939 4.241-42 105 4.366 22, 2471, 3247
4.130 3400 4.242 1408 4.366-76 3622, 3771
4.131 1098, 3696 4.243 3018 4.366-77 3193
4.134 1975 4.245-46 728 4.369 1022, 2627
4.135 342, 645, 1622, 1753, 4.246 2227 4.370 2471, 3247
1464, 1490 4.248-50 3368 4.371 1341
4.139 647, 1968 4.253 1068 4.371-76 1622
4.140 304, 3347 4.254 3562 4.375 3696
4.140-41 2634 4.256 901 4.379 2179
4.141 304 4.257 705, 3562 4.382-83 804
4.145 1728 4.258 728, 1061, 2757 4.385 513
4.146 728, 3562 4.259 1956, 1971 4.388-97 1622
4.147 1939 4.260 543 4.393 3657
4.150 1320 4.265 158, 939 4.394 1183, 1316, 2750, 2757
4.151 105, 1499, 1695, 3369 4.271 728 4.387 747
4.152 939 4.278 1041 4.388 105, 543, 814
4.152-61 52 4.279 158, 939 4.389 728
4.154 158, 939, 1630 4.281 3562 4.392 1653
4.158 647 4.285 429 4.397 3193
4.159 728, 1320, 1665, 1800, 4.287 241 4.400 1604
2781, 2781, 3368 4.292 1491 4.401 3472
4.160 1157, 1158 4.293 1083 4.401-2 187, 1403
4.160-62 3369 4.298 291 4.402 188, 524, 1605, 1662,
4.162-223 1499 4.300-54 p.85 1662
4.163 1320, 2903 4.301 1883 4.406 1660, 1662
4.163-92 p.265 4.302 2594, 3018 4.409 1490
4.165 1968 4.305 804 4.412 3084
4.168 2638 4.309 1183 4.417 15
4.169 1956 4.312 530, 923, 1210, 1416 4.418 2146, 2652
4.170 2176 4.314-22 1499, 1466, 3369, 3532, 4.420 469
4.173 112 3819, 3829 4.422 3621
4.175 1183 4.316-20 3363 4.423 339
4.175-77 728 4.317 463, 804 4.424 2662
4.177-78 1316, 2750 4.318 1823, 2573 4.427 3158
4.180-82 2603 4.318-25 3375 4.429 1416
4.181 2571 4.319 382, 739, 2227, p.90 4.431 3151
4.182 802, 2523 4.320 143, 1239, 1256, 2222, 4.438 368
4.185 728, 2099 3545 4.400 1604
4.186-88 647 4.320-24 3805, 3809 4.441 3696
4.187 1321 4.321 461 4.443 3398
4.189 3497 4.323 105, 870, 1320, 1466 4.443-44 3398
4.193 1248, 1665, 2197, 3497 4.326-34 176 4.444 463, 594, 3400, 3403
4.193-238 3369 4.326-44 3829 4.444-45 388
4.197 2754 4.327 1728 4.449 579
4.199 2278, 3691 4.328 895 4.451-85 7
4.201 1320, 2663 4.329 895, 931, 2768 4.453 2278
4.203 1883 4.330 1728 4.457 777
4.206 291 4.334 158, 939 4.465 830
4.208 3519 4.335 2179, 2227 4.478 761
4.209 3756 4.336 158, 939, 1596 4.487-88 3580
4.211 1802, 2099, 2176 4.338 553, 1802 4.486-89 2825
4.213 1752 4.339 42 4.486-90 3167
4.214-15 842 4.340 158, 939 4.487-98 1983
4.215 1320, 2663 4.342 158, 939 4.488 2879
4.216 900, 1883, 2754 4.344 1183 4.489 308
4.217 2805 4.347 728, 3562 4.492 872, 1041
4.225 2531, 3372, 3377 4.348 2757 4.493 2757, 3600
4.225-45 1948 4.349 2358 4.494 1274
4.227 1363 4.353 1622, 1596, 3829 4.495 3696
458 index of ancient texts

4.496 1579 5.14 3323 5.131 1081

4.499 2310 5.16 802 5.133 712
4.501 2805 5.17-77 1994 5.134 2736
4.503 594, 1700, 2825, 3167, 5.18-30 3193 5.135 1648
3396 5.19 2471, 3247 5.136 552
4.503-4 3829 5.20 86, 838, 840, p.90 5.136-137 2653
4.504 1472 5.20-27 1622 5.136-247 1190, 2653
4.509 645 5.21 1596, 3167, 3372 5.137 1961
4.510 728 5.22 3168 5.137-41 2654
4.511 594, 1472 5.24 649, 3771 5.140 2142
4.513 645 5.27 546 5.141 3300
4.516 1604 5.28 728 5.142 3205, 3211
4.528 469 5.30 342, 1947 5.144 2159, 2163, 2736
4.539 3719 5.30-34 3622 5.145 686, 740, 2085, 2142,
4.545 3696 5.33 3719 2765, 3208, p.89
4.546 2378 5.35 1733 5.147 552, 2460, 2736
4.547 1445 5.39 2471, 3247 5.147-55 1364, 3205
4.550 594 5.41 1492, 3132, 3325, 3348 5.149-51 2062, 3206
4.551 308, 1472, 3403 5.42 388, 409 5.150 649
4.552 705 5.45 1378 5.152 1364, 1633
4.556-84 3829 5.46 290 5.153 1366, 3239
4.557 1068 5.47-53 457 5.155 1364, 3205, 3371
4.558 645 5.48 1058, 1705 5.158 3227
4.560 1968, 2760 5.49 3169 5.160 801
4.561-62 777 5.50 3403 5.161-69 2736
4.562 757 5.51 429 5.166-69 281
4.564 3527, 3827 5.52 469 5.169 3827
4.567 512, 2462, 3160 5.53 1469 5.174 761
4.573 2757, 3827 5.59 1009 5.176-82 1941
4.586 2378 5.60 1184 5.176-83 272
4.587 2179 5.61 649, 983 5.177 325, 3086
4.595 2378 5.63 1248 5.180-81 2741
4.596 512, 1304 5.65 1005 5.187 304, 305, 1099
4.601 1665 5.66 377 5.188 1967
4.604 3018 5.67 388 5.190 2079
4.607 2450 5.67-68 1648, 3196, 3197 5.190-92 291, 2079
4.607-10 2448 5.70 274, 1648 5.193-94 2148
4.608 2429, 2451 5.71-84 284 5.194 980
4.616-18 1378 5.71-97 276 5.200 304
4.617 3026 5.72 1022, 2627 5.201 2588
4.618 2641 5.74-97 274 5.201-206 1377
4.619 2327, 2328 5.75 302, 1665, 2014 5.214 3198
4.622 870, 1007, 2805, 2815 5.83 2068 5.218 2278
4.623-29 678 5.85-97 284 5.228 2032
4.635 524, 925, 3204 5.88 323, 926, p.87 5.231 2032
4.640 1088, 1216 5.90 1248 5.233 158, 939
4.647 3710 5.92 691 5.236-37 7
4.648 2378 5.97 3657 5.237 3210
4.651 1408 5.99 64, 67, 1826 5.242 158, 939
4.652 p.85 5.99-105 3372 5.243-44 291
4.656 2641 5.101 1059 5.243-45 1402, 2063, 2079
4.658-62 1983, 2448 5.102 469, 2058 5.244 1058, 1401
4.660 429 5.103 2176 5.246 2062
5 774, 1364, 1961, 3408 5.104-105 2489 5.248 22
5.2 1466 5.105 3167 5.248-55 3167
5.3 2754 5.106-8 1648, 3196 5.248-57 3193
5.4 1341 5.110 1947 5.250-51 3372
5.5 814, 2754, 3372 5.114 3251 5.252 712, 2142, 2653
5.5-7 3372, 3377 5.115-21 3463 5.254 2765
5.6 342 5.120 872, 1171, 1440, 2259, 5.256 2099
5.7 2754 2354 5.256-57 728
5.8 2454 5.121 1937, 3056, 3468 5.263 3323
5.9 994 5.122 1464, 3462 5.265 1968
5.10 1320, 2663 5.123 240 5.267 1792, 3324, 3348
5.11 342, 2653, 3167, 3827 5.124 897 5.275-81 3322
5.12 3372 5.127 2416, 3462 5.277-78 276
index of ancient texts 459

5.278 1022, 2471, 3247 5.423 1883 6:14-15 1997

5.284 524 5.425 514 6.15 883, 1883
5.285 925, 2662, 3204 5.426 2176 6.17-19 305
5.288 3039 5.427 3650 6.18 457
5.289-90 1975 5.429 1971 6.21 933, 1700
5.290 524 5.430 2859 6.22 291, 469, 925, 3204
5.291 3251 5.433 2859 6.23 524, 3322
5.299 3322 5.435 826, 2297 6.23-32 2729
5.302 3348 5.438 826 6.26 3322
5.304 291 5.439 1653, 3562 6.27-28 3239
5.305 293, 339 5.440 1596 6.28 3151
5.305-6 276, 302 5.441 2627, 3530 6.29-32 3463, 3664
5.306 647, 1665, 2662 5.443 535 6.32 787
5.315-16 276, 305 5.444 2088 6.33 376, 926, p.87
5.316 2099 5:445 933 6.33-53 276
5.317 1642 5.449-51 463, 1972, 1975 6.38 2471, 3247
5.318 1797 5.450 2768 6.39 2416
5.318-30 3222 5.453 1596 6.41 433, 1183
5.324 1248 5.457 157, 1363 6.42 376, 900, 926, p.87
5.325 3791 5.458 376, 926, 1183, p.87 6.43 2358
5.329 746, 3664 5.459 1116 6.46 2364
5.332 543 5.460-65 2996, 3072 6.47 945, 947, 1180, 2805
5.333 524 5.461 513 6.52 1248
5.334 1851, 1955 5.466-72 3240 6.55 1700
5.335 901 5.467 1102 6.59 2805
5.336 1596, 1948, 1967 5.468 3211 6.60 2014
5.343 1254, 2471, 3247 5.469 3239 6.62 1248, 2917
5.345 308 5.472 1911 6.64 1073
5.348-55 3198 5.474 2462, 3160 6.68 1058
5.352 3232 5.483 897 6.69 3476
5.353 925, 3204 5.491 1491 6.71 3239
5.360-61 1955 5.502 2805 6.74 288, 804
5.361 157 5.504 1648 6.75 1088, 2803
5.362-419 2597, p.268 5.505 712, 2142 6.76 804
5.364 1254 5.518 304 6.78-9 3463, 3664
5.365 728, 746, 2224, 2227 5.521 3198 6.79 801
5.367 870, 2472, 2473, p.268 5.523 2460 6.80 88, 1068, 1091
5.367-68 2471, 3247 5.526 546 6.81 290, 1248, 1700, 2917
5.371 1955 5.531 158, 939, 1653 6.82 88, 1068, 1091
5.372 1456 5.532 388 6.86 88, 1068, 1091
5.373 1068, 1345 5.533 2696 6.89 284, 2151, 1985, 3463
5.376-77 2597 5.539 1187 6.90 1758
5.376-419 p.265 5.540 515, 1728 6.94 1826
5.377 2805 5.544 2696 6.95 1320, 2663
5.378 2471, 3247 5.546 1363 6.98 2808
5.381 1321 5.550-56 438 6.99 105
5.382 746 5.552 1210 6.99-110 p.265
5.388 2528 5.554 3373 6.101 2001, 2471, 3247
5.389 5331 5.556 833, 1975 6.102 42
5.389-93 525, 526 5.558 1963 6.108 1007, 1116
5.390 2597, 3414, p.268 5.561 3699 6.109 1321, 1775, 2868
5.395-96 728 5.562-63 2571 6.110 105, 2663, 3247
5.395-97 2234, 2481 5.565 774, p.90 6.112 1883
5.396 232, 2229, 2471, 3247 5.565-66 777, 1408 6.113 524
5.397 246 5.567 1826 6.115 3403
5.399-403 2487 5.566 774 6.121 3323
5.399 2597 5.569 195 6.122 1321
5.402 876, 1320, 1968, 2663 5.1145 784 6.123 1073
5.403 1623 6 195, 333, 1142, 1796, 6.124 2011, 2204
5.408 728 1911, 2803, 3408 6.126 2803
5.410 2142 6.3 602 6.130 1473
5.413 1016 6.4 923, 1210, 1321, 2803 6.134 2416
5.414 104, 1773 6.10 933, 1321 6.149 2655
5.419 2180 6.12 3463, 3664 6.152-56 3463, 3664
5.419-20 2534 6.13 1248, 2175, 2917 6.157 1648
5.422 1183 6.13-14 276 6.159 1254
460 index of ancient texts

6.161 1416 6.288 285, 1629, 1989 6.409-13 1366, 2472

6.165 933 6.288-314 3816 6.411 1261
6.165-66 295, 2079 6.290 67 6.412 308
6.176 2176 6.293 2588 6.413 1058
6.177-81 295, 2079 6.293-95 3816 6.415 2442
6.178 294 6.294 2568 6.417 1469
6.179 302, 2176 6.296 2805 6.420 195
6.180-81 297 6.297 2805 6.421 67
6.181 300 6.299 259, 3247 6.422 1519, 1792, 3348
6.182 1245 6.299-300 7 6.422-23 67
6.183 941 6.302 1596 6.422-28 1419
6.183-84 284 6.303 720, 1705, 2805 6.423 64, 67
6.184 940 6.305 720, 1705, 1733 6.424 1796
6.185 524 6.309 44 6.425 1974
6.190 3463, 3664 6.310 530 6.428 67
6.191 295, 2079, 2159 6.312 979 6.429 308, 2696, 2805
6.195 4896 6.312-13 3816 6.431 195
6.196 1341, 1408 6.315 3816 6.433 512, 2696, 3247
6.197 2176 6.316 15, 933 6.433-34 3517, 3532
6.199 826 6.323-27 2526 6.438 410, 1685
6.200 157, 2529 6.325 2159 7 53, 241, 814, 1211, 1672,
6.202 2879 6.326 3827 2255, 2560, 2764, 3408,
6.202-3 2179 6.329 247 3673
6.206 1183 6.329-33 2235 7.1 1941
6.214 1187 6.331 953, 1073, 1700, 2377 7.2-3 2736
6.214-87 2655 6.332 2403 7.4 57
6.215 2627 6.333 3526 7.7 2176
6.216 804, 1022 6.335-36 647 7.10 1356
6.217 804 6.338 1792, 3348 7.12 2416
6.219 2180 6.343 1633 7.14 2468
6.221 3322 6.344 1947 7.16 15
6.222 3239 6.345 514 7.18 1792, 3066, 3132, 3348
6.224 1092 6.346 543, 1851 7.20 108
6.225-226 1058 6.347-50 2526 7.22 3771
6.227 3827 6.351 1215, 2526, 3700 7.26 1619, 2696
6.228 2655, 3664 6.352-55 2526, 3047 7.26-35 3167
6.229 388, 3527 6.353 543, 3664 7.32 512, 3827
6.232-35 2079 6.354 2765 7.34 104, 2471, 3247
6.233 1911 6.355 933 7.35 2696
6.234 933, 2180 6.356 1596, 3664 7.41-62 2516, 2938, 2941
6.237 1378 6.356-57 2462, 3160 7.41-65 2945
6.238 720, 1767, 3212 6.361 1088 7.43 2255
6.238-40 2655 6.363 1490, 2142, 2653, 3047 7.43-53 2517
6.239 543 6.364 639, 940 7.44 1829, 2990
6.242 1378, 3026 6.370 2696 7.45 2511, 3358
6.243 227, 1911 6.371 2471, 3247 7.46-47 2516
6.245 465 6.372 933, 2803 7.47 3009
6.250 1007, 1757, 1826, 2609 6.373 2143 7.48-53 2516
6.251 1445, 1911 6.374 2653 7.50-53 902
6.252 2805 6.377 2159 7.55-61 2686
6.254 284 6.378 647 7.56 2090
6.255 3147, 3808 6.380 1728 7.59 3119
6.256 3055 6.383 3528 7.65 739, 3771, p.87 n.f
6.259 195, 2681 6.384 1215 7.69-71 628
6.262 1911 6.387-91 304, 305, 2038 7.76-89 2378
6.264 933 6.391 2031 7.81 247
6.267 1007 6.393 3322 7.82 1664, 2805, 2815
6.268 1007 6.395 2752 7.83 2180
6.271 802, 933, 1968 6.398 631 7.84 1363
6.272 933 6.399 1223, 2471, 2472, 3247 7.99 902
6.279 524 6.399-400 2259, 2354 7.100-111 2938
6.280 3706 6.401 631, 2142, 2472 7.100-115 2516
6.282 304, 933, 2038 6.402 2696 7.103 15
6.285 1637 6.403 1058 7.104 2861
6.285 1640, 1665 6.404 1967 7.117 2327, 2328
6.286 161, 982 6.406 1967 7.118 3517
index of ancient texts 461

7.120 2805 7.323-24 1183 Judean Antiquities

7.127 15 7.323-36 1093 1-9 3691
7.137 1773 7.324 3530 1-11 1264
7.143 518 7.326 241 1-12 2522
7.143-45 437 7.327 728, 2305 1-15 2221
7.145 2808 7.332 2868 1.6 874, 895, 1828, p.86
7.148 2310 7.332-33 2904 1.7 1828
7.148-52 305, 2038, 2525 7.332-36 2907 1.10 1829, 1854
7.154 1773, 3167 7.333-35 2496 1.13 3251
7.158 814 7.334 728 1.14 518, 1015, 1184, 1571,
7.158-59 2805 7.338 241, 1245, 2495 3522
7.161-62 2038 7.339-40 2534 1.15 895, 966
7.163-209 112, 2975 7.341 728, 3791 1.17 1733
7.164 1664 7.341-88 p.265, p.268 1.18 895
7.168 2226 7.344 728, 941, 947 1.20 518, 1015, 1016, 1184,
7.178-85 848 7.351 1310 1571, 3522
7.182 241 7.353 947 1.22 966
7.185 848, 851, 1635, 2805, 7.356 512 1.26 979
p.87 7.357 1860 1.27 1828
7.187 524 7.361-62 1823 1.33 2813
7.189 1209 7.362 1215, 1487, 2911 1.39 2421
7.190-209 2979 7.362-63 1680 1.41 1571
7.195 3251 7.364-65 2868 1.44 1571
7.197 3254 7.365 2918 1.46 1571
7.202 463 7.365-66 2879 1.53 1409
7.203 1254, 2259, 2354 7.367 2840, 2935 1.60 743
7.212 302 7.368 3361 1.61 881, 1490
7.215 2696 7.369 1144, 3050 1.65 1326
7.217 388 7.370 728 1.72 22, 747
7.218 304, 727 7.371 746 1.73 2528
7.219-26 3077 7.372 728 1.74 1487
7.219-38 3119 7.373 931 1.78 728
7.219-43 3072 7.376 1685 1.80-81 1821
7.226 1386 7.377 814 1.82 979
7.228 1215 7.378-79 1093 1.96 1473
7.231 2259, 2354 7.380 1215 1.104-6 922
7.232 1700, 2883 7.380-93 1487, 2911 1.113 3522
7.235 241 7.382 1215 1.130 953
7.238 3557 7.384 241, 2883 1.136 583
7.252-58 342 7.384-85 1316 1.139 979
7.253 718, 2713, 2762, 2764 7.385 1215 1.154 1564
7.253-311 1604 7.386 1215 1.164 433
7.254 724 7.389 1635 1.166 50
7.255 728, 1183, 1316 7.389-401 2492 1.176 2520
7.256-58 2688 7.391 1215 1.178 1009
7.260 2688 7.393 1215 1.181 3666
7.263-64 3532 7.395 1625 1.188 1543
7.263-66 3167 7.396 2099 1.198 2528
7.264 936, 980 7.399 2761 1.212 2785
7.265 3827 7.399-400 2761 1.221 2421
7.268 2754 7.405 1911 1.239 2421
7.270 158, 939 7.406 376, 926, p.87 1.240 982
7.273 2099 7.410 1604 1.257 1049
7.275 1223 7.410-19 1604 1.272 3771
7.275-97 2764 7.416 1363, 1604 1.274 2334
7.278 829 7.418-19 728 1.282-83 804
7.280-303 2561 7.421 247 1.292 656
7.281 801 7.421-36 p.85 1.312 982, 1985
7.283 241 7.429 814 1.315 543
7.297 2559, 2561 7.434 814 1.323 842
7.302 1183 7.437 1672 1.323-24 2785
7.318 2805, 2815 7.437-44 1604 1.333 2528
7.319 2469, 2471, 3247 7.447 1633 1.354 1151
7.320-88 2764 7.447-50 493 2.3 382, 2785
7.321 1215, 1487 7.451 1363 2.7 2416, 3522
7.323 728 2.7 3522
462 index of ancient texts

2.10 499 3.71-72 3468 4.103 1693

2.11 1073 3.76 2334 4.114 804, 3522
2.12 2090 3.79 801 4.126 1355
2.15 1073 3.81 979 4.127 3251
2.24 1326 3.84 1571 4.129-154 1155
2.25 3497, 3498 3.86 829 4.131-44 1409
2.27 3657 3.87 2416 4.137 1073
2.29 1326 3.88 1184 4.140 2416
2.51 859 3.91 902, 1061, 1073 4.144 1408
2.52 3497, 3498 3.92 842, 864, 876 4.146 833, 1304
2.64-86 678 3.99 1571 4.160 3719
2.71 679 3.105 979 4.163 1598
2.81 679, 683 3.115 2590 4.164 3522
2.81-83 681 3.159 1733 4.171 3084
2.81-86 678 3.142 959 4.177 2469
2.83 681 3.143 902, 1852 4.184 2416
2.84 689 3.178 2031 4.186 2085
2.107 2099 3.181 802 4.192 2874
2.146 1094 3.184 2590 4.202 1411
2.189 1183 3.185 953 4.205 2030
2.198 761, 3522 3.197 1579 4.209 64, 3140
2.201 3657 3.199 801 4.211 753
2.206 900 3.222 1355, 1481 4.214 2030
2.209-10 878 3.225 1350 4.218 2085
2.220 3287 3.228 1350 4.219 758
2.234 3618 3.232 1355 4.220 2085
2.238 3618 3.237 902, 1852 4.221 3608
2.241 2469 3.239 1826 4.222 1623, 1985, 2085
2.248 1183 3.245 1350, 2522 4.224-36 3383
2.250 3084 3.248 1826 4.255-56 2085
2.253 157, 2785 3.248-51 67 4.256 602
2.255 3618 3.251-52 259 4.261 991, 1473
2.257 2421 3.252 259 4.270-326 3383
2.263 590 3.258 2030 4.286 3497, 3498
2.265 761 3.259-60 936 4.295 880
2.267 1854 3.263 809 4.298 2883, 2884
2.269 1350 3.266 916 4.301 777
2.272 157, 1253 3.274 1571 4.302 880, 3009
2.277-83 2098 3.280 852, 880 4.304 880, 2620
2.285 1853, 2098 3.286 880 4.305 801, 2590
2.293 1985 3.287-90 2030 4.309 891, 1183
2.294 1094 3.304 3084 4.310 2757
2.302 1487 3.306 157 4.318 1184
2.311 1826 3.308 900 4.319 1860
2.313 66, 67 3.319 3497, 3498 4.324 2620
2.315 2421 3.354 2259 4.324-25 2085
2.300 1598 4.8 433 4.325 747
2.302 1487 4.11 555 4.326 979
2.306 2305 4.12-66 2627 4.327 1826
2.320 1642 4.13 1860 4.345-53 3383
2.339 3251 4.14 3657 4.414 1571
2.341 2682 4.17 56 4.566-70 3383
2.344 433 4.19 2030 5 289
2.347 979 4.27 1571 5.5 3084
2.348 2757 4.36 31 5.15 2085, 2785
2.372-73 2785 4.40 22 5.20 67, 1708
2.458 2519 4.45 829 5.23 2085
2.480 2519 4.67 2030 5.25 1968
3.13 900, 3497, 3498 4.72 1997 5.26 2785
3.18 3251 4.73 1101 5.48 1598
3.22 2099 4.76 2627 5.52 3297
3.34 829 4.83 1151 5.54 900
3.42 2757 4.84 1826, 2702 5.55 2785
3.60 1350 4.89 2207 5.65 2204, 2682
3.66-74 892 4.91 2657 5.72 3084
3.70-71 1355, 1481 4.101 1350 5.73 469
index of ancient texts 463

5.81 583 6.193 499, 3657 7.356 866, p.89 n.h

5.82 436 6.210 859 7.367 304
5.83 2827 6.213 3297 7.369 304
5.96 28 6.216 804 7.374 866
5.98 2469 6.223 1919, 2785 7.384 866, 1266, p.89 n.h
5.103 2587 6.260-62 2859 8.7 453
5.110 10093 6.266 1408 8.41 379
5.119 1151 6.282 3251 8.44 851
5.139 3297 6.285 1619 8.44-45 851
5.148 941 6.300-309 979 8.44-49 851, 1635, 2805, p.87
5.149 1408 6.341 3480 8.45-48 2805
5.150 1691 6.342 820 8.46 851
5.167 1005 6.343-50 647 8.47 851
5.169 3297 6.344-47 926, p.87 8.49 804
5.169-74 2785 6.347 759, p.90 8.55 851, 2691
5.170 3791 6.357 2018 8.57 28
5.172 64 6.360 829 8.61 1826
5.228 1112 6.374 2827 8.94 2034
5.242 1728 6.377 829 8.95 304
5.248-49 3383 6.378-81 3383 8.100 1826, 3140
5.249 3008 6.937 801 8.112 433
5.268 469 7.1 1482, 2018 8.116-17 2571
5.280 2528 7.4 1919 8.123 3140
5.289 157 7.5 1619 8.138 2874, p.85
5.290 3383 7.24 1619 8.152 1425
5.302 1216 7.40 2018 8.163 2310, 2421
5.307 3621 7.45 1184 8.170 1095
5.330 2334 7.46 2011 8.176 2034
5.340 3719 7.79 1985 8.181 2310
5.345 1408 7.84 768 8.186 12
5.358 3383 7.92 2663 8.204 1753
5.360 1151 7.111 2785 8.209 1409
5.365 727 7.127 2334 8.210 1728
5.367 2259 7.130-31 708 8.221 1985
5.396 727 7.135 474 8.225 64, 3140
6.3 947 7.136 402, 485 8.227 1210
6.10 1350 7.150 897 8.230 64
6.11 379 7.154-6 12 8.232 1629
6.17 2085 7.156 12 8.235 688
6.21 1700 7.157 3251 8.236 1641, 3678
6.31-44 728 7.159 829 8.241-42 1641
6.33-34 1409 7.165 3771 8.252 747
6.34 2529 7.196 2001 8.258 304
6.36 134, 1285 7.208 2903 8.265 1442
6.41 1183 7.211-12 1619 8.277 3009
6.42 1322, 1797 7.229 3650 8.280 866, p.89 n.h
6.49 3315 7.242 1082 8.284 594
6.56 3009 7.249 3771 8.294 1005
6.57 1350 7.259 2129 8.299 1440
6.59 3657 7.265 1098 8.306 3084
6.69 543 7.267 3383 8.307 1873
6.76 801, 804 7.274 829 8.311 295, 3650
6.82 28 7.285 1828 8.318 757, 1640, 2874
6.83 1027 7.290 1005 8.336 2874
6.93 747 7.297 777 8.365 1005
6.110 1600 7.294 1797 8.383 3084
6.115 1515 7.305-6 2034 8.388 2785
6.131 22 7.307 2416 8.393 1180
6.133-38 2859 7.317 2416 8.402 1640
6.140 2421 7.324 1828 8.406 1640
6.148 3383 7.336 2174 8.409 1640
6.151 1350 7.338 866, 1266, p.89 n.h 8.414 3589
6.160 351 7.341 866, p.89 n.h 9.3 769
6.165 774, p.90 7.363 1355 9.11 2034
6.166 2805 7.368 3468 9:16 866, 2469, p.89 n.h
6.166-214 2805 7.393 1005 9.21 2528
464 index of ancient texts

9.25 656 10.194-99 695 11.336-37 525

9.28 979 10.195-210 678 11.340 428
9.56 900 10.212 3657 12.1 2757
9.58 543 10.230 1487 12.2 1027
9.67 2018 10.233 305 12.8 2984, 2996
9.104 433 10.250 3657 12.20 2207
9.109 1826 10.256 3657 12.24 p.87 n.f
9.111 1919 10.258 1985 12.25 1350
9.128 3691 10.268-70 804 12.34 1211
9.131 1728 10.275-81 525 12.38 802
9.133-37 1640 10.277-80 1184 12.43 866, p.89 n.h
9.149 900 10.277-81 1015 12.49 2620
9.155 2030 10.279 2310 12.49-50 305
9.156 2334 11.1-18 526 12.50-86 1983
9.164 304 11.1-91 525 12.56 866, p.89 n.h
9.168 1860 11.2 528 12.68 p.90
9.170 304 11.5-6 525 12.71 2754
9.191 1005 11.8 526 12.72 p.90
9.195 2334 11.9 2001 12.103 147
9.196 1440 11.10 305 12.119-20 3547
9.200 469 11.14 305 12.120 3549
9.202 304 11.15 1855 12.158 727
9.209 1350 11.26 402 12.213 1919
9.217 2421 11.30-34 2647 12.224 739
9.219 1598 11.39 2261 12.227-28 402
9.224 2334 11.54 2097 12.233 2824
9.225 804 11.56 2207 12.241 2159, 2794
9.226 2903 11.61 1005 12.248 1826
9.231 2143 11.62 2097 12.255 2768
9.236 866, p.89 n.h 11.63-67 2647 12.257 428
9.245 2421 11.77 2001, 3140 12.257-61 318
9.246 433 11.88 318 12.259 902
9.263-64 67 11.90 3522 12.274 543, 902
9.269 2034 11.97 318, 402 12.282 928
9.271 64 11.109 64 12.294 727, 3541
9.290-91 428, 1446 11.110 1350 12.296 1183
10 525 11.111 134, 1285 12.298 388
10-12 p.91 11.116-19 318 12.320 802, 1027
10.2 1619 11.119 304 12.306 388
10.24 1350 11.120-21 526 12.316 3009
10.30 2757 11.120-38 526 12.343 3187
10.33-34 525 11.126 304 12.347 2151
10.37 2663 11.130 897 12.348 2827
10.39 157 11.133 526 12.349 1350
10.52 2874 11.137 2001 12.364 2757
10.59 2018 11.142 1757 12.389 2097
10.66 1640 11.144 897 12.390 1728
10.70-71 67 11.148 1826 12.398 31
10.74 2757 11.154 3140 12.402 1473, 1619, 3297
10.79 525 11.156 1266 12.412 1826
10.83 1005 11.203 2097 12.414 1223
10.93 3009 11.218 1473 12.416 1356
10.98 1005 11.221 2018 12.421 3434
10.104 1640 11.236 1082 12.424 804
10.111 305, 1640 11.239 3196 12.429 900
10.112 1716 11.261 2334 12.433 2099
10.115 2768 11.263 528 13-20 1272
10.133 2207 11.281 2197 13.2 1603
10.134 3263 11.297 727, 2663 13.4 1728
10.136 3084 11.300 2663 13.5 2768
10.140-41 525 11.306 1985 13.12 902
10.144 305 11.325 2839 13.15 388
10.149 305 11.329-30 2572 13.16 3084
10.155 727 11.329-39 2984 13.35 2090
10.175 305 11.331 1144 13.36 3008
10.190-94 922, 936 11.335 2757 13.46 3140
index of ancient texts 465

13.51 1619 13.383 2143 14.212 560

13.55 2032, 2623 13.393 2825, 3396, 3442 14.213 1312
13.61 3263 13.397 2824, 2826 14.219 1356
13.85 2090 13.398 2825 14.221 1356
13.113 2097 13.400-32 736, 1155 14.224 402
13.125 594 13.401 866, 1039 14.225 1312
13.140 3315 13.401-6 3630 14.226 560, 902
13.144 2097 13.402 3657 14.235 1312
13.146 1198 13.403 60, 618 14.241 402
13.167 402, 2129 13.407 2682 14.242 902
13.171 730 13.408 2757 14.243 402
13.171-73 686, 734, 736, 737, 740, 13.415 2805 14.244 1312
1000, 1007, p.91 13.425 1059 14.245 902
13.172 686, 1015 13.426 1408 14.252-54 402
13.173 1009 13.429 304 14.258 902, 1829
13.188 2827 13.430 2305 14.259 1312, 1753
13.197 2682 13.430-31 758 14.260 803
13.199 2099 13.430-32 714 14.264 902
13.202 3084 14 33 14.266 1356
13.214 560 14-17 30 14.271-85 342
13.220 3525 14.1 1733 14.273 1059
13.228 1728 14.25 67 14.275 1183, 3018
13.232 1144 14.25-26 1391 14.285 64
13.234 902 14.27 2001 14.286 3525
13.235 2823 14.40 3671 14.302 1630
13.241 3140 14.46 2334 14.304 543
13.242-43 2572 14.48 2233 14.306 560
13.252 902 14.63 902, 2483 14.309 804
13.254-58 264, 3383 14.64 902 14.314 560, 1312
13.277 2827 14.71 2244 14.317 560
13.280 2827 14.73 304 14.319 1356
13.281 1027 14.74 727, 728 14.327 474
13.282 2794 14.75 2822, 2826 14.352 3220
13.284 1983, 2794 14.76 2839 14.357 1088
13.284-87 650 14.77 727 14.365-369 283
13.288 730, 731, 2794, 3657 14.88 2839 14.368 58
13.288-89 736 14.105 305 14.369 940, 941
13.288-96 1014 14.116 645 14.375 2310
13.289 1619 14.117 560 14.381 2520
13.293 730, 737, 3396 14.117-88 1983 14.393 686
13.294 1014, 1023 14.121 2969 14.401 3263
13.296 737 14.127-32 3035 14.415 3434
13.297 686, 1014 14.131 3666 14.423 301
13.297-98 2583 14.133 3035 14.433 247
13.298 686, 740, p.89 14.134 1985 14.442 2682
13.299-300 979, 2794 14.142 2099 14.463 1088
13.300 982 14.148 560 14.484 1345, 2151
13.311 684, 686, 687, 740, 784, 14.151 560 14.488 2571
978, p.91 14.157 1304, 3528 15-16 151
13.314 1326, 2815 14.159 341, 344, 1430 15.3 736, 3396
13.316 3497 14.160 2998 15.3-4 341
13.317 2805 14.161 872 15.26 3066
13.319 2794 14.165-84 341 15.28 2892
13.320 3580 14.167 341 15.30 41, 1634
13.322 635 14.167-51 147 15.36 2528
13.328 650 14.188 2990, 2998, 3035 15.44 1603
13.331 650 14.190 1312 15.48 1575
13.334-335 1679 14.191 560, 1356 15.49 1575
13.355 1009 14.194 560 15.50 3140
13.356 2828 14.196 560 15.52 1575
13.357 2838 14.197 1356 15.61 1575
13.358 650 14.200 560 15.81 2204
13.358-61 2839 14.200-06 727 15.90 802
13.367 2097 14.200-10 33 15.98 757, p.85
13.372 3140 14.201 1892 15.111 288
13.381 2197 14.210 560, 1278, 1873 15.114 469
466 index of ancient texts

15.116 2334 15.374 158, 939 16.369 897

15.120 469 15.384 1210 16.389 2768
15.130 219, 3657 15.407 2538 16.390 2099
15.135 868 15.413 2079 16.395-99 1015
15.139 193 15.418 2588, 2590 16.401 1223
15.148 2821 15.420 3008 16.404 3480
15.150-52 3147 16.6 753 17 134, 396
15.151 288 16.11 695 17-19 307, 852, 2937, p.90
15.157 543 16.14 1922, 2572 17.2 2605
15.164 2821 16.16-24 2306 17.10 56, 1033
15.171 402 16.21 1575 17.11.4 1248
15.173 1515 16.24 1733 17.12-14 1391
15.193 28 16.37 2099 17.13-14 68
15.199 3086, 3666 16.46 833 17.19 20
15.201 28 16.48 1356 17.20-21 119
15.204 3525 16.56 377 17.21.6 1248
15.205 1098 16.64 33, 1733 17.22 155
15.216 2821 16.69 174 17.23-26 362
15.223 1059 16.77 1827 17.23-30 1987, 2646
15.240 859 16.86 3168 17.23-31 2953, 3074, 3162
15.246 2295 16.91 636 17.25 33
15.250 337 16.99 804, 2099 17.29-30 1988
15.260 859 16.100-102 3497 17.30-31 2648
15.264 688 16.108 804 17.34-76 1155
15.266 833 16.118 22 17.41 20, 867, 1004, 2937
15.267-76 2159 16.128 150, 1209 17.41-45 731, 736
15.268 271, 2159 16.130 362 17.46 40, 147
15.268-76 1689 16.135 22 17.47 157
15.270-71 2159 16.136-141 1077 17.60 1326
15.272-79 1061 16.139 1033 17.75 1326
15.277-78 2159 16.142 2874 17.86 3220
15.279 158, 939 16.143 2969 17.91 1326
15.281 157, 2757 16.159 1210 17.97 306
15.282 1607, 2821 16.161 2614 17.101 747
15.283 2099 16.162-165 304 17.102 1319
15.288 3494 16.164 3086 17.130 900, 1408
15.291 424 16.180 1619 17.131 900
15.292 2822 16.188 433, 2805 17.141 1033
15.292-96 424 16.190 3382 17.143 1082
15.294 2824, 2833 16.191 93 17.146 306, 1033
15.297 3084 16.193 695 17.152 71, 729
15.299 433 16.194-200 600 17.154 3552
15.317 2421 16.197 93 17.155 71, 729
15.318 272, 1941 16.206-10 695 17.161 3009
15.320-22 51 16.208 2892 17.164-65 51
15.331-41 579 16.209 174 17.175-78 169
15.340 2696 16.210 2805 17.177 900
15.346 1829, 3619 16.216 3525 17.189 362, 572, 1037
15.347 3287 16.226-28 600 17.189-90 306
15.349 1249, 1460, 3657 16.229 1053 17.190 1033
15.351 2828 16.234 2099 17.193 169
15.351-58 2822 16.256 1619 17.195 28
15.354 2828 16.257 93, 127 17.198 2378
15.356 2828 16.271-76 362 17.200 1, 6, 12
15.358 2828 16.271-300 417 17.201 30
15.360 571, 1110 16.285 362 17.202 26, 162, 1473, 2097
15.363 2494 16.293 1249, 1460 17.204 31, 33, 35
15.365 33, 1027 16.295 24 17.204-5 34
15.370 341, 3396 16.298 2197 17.205 38
15.371 686, 841 16.321 93 17.207 52
15.371-72 3396 16.330 93 17.208 38, 53, 59, 95
15.371-78 686, 740, 784, p.89, 16.335-55 417 17.210 61
p.91 16.346 2189 17.211 31
15.371-79 978 16.353 24 17.213-14 67
15.372 p.89 16.353-54 417 17.214 70, 73
15.372-78 686, 687, 2711 16.357-67 147 17.215 81
index of ancient texts 467

17.216 60 17.312 227 18.16-17 1014

17.218 91 17.313-14 544 18.17 1014, 2583
17.219 92, 99 17.314 60, 548, 715 18.18 1011, p.91
17.220 103, 157 17.316 247 18.18-22 686, 740, p.91
17.221 107 17.317 560, 561 18.19 784, 808
17.224 120 17.318 564, 1690 18.20 742
17.226 128 17.319 362, 371, 3710 18.21 749, 758 985
17.229 146 17.320 586, 1362, 2828 18.21-22 751
17.230 157 17.321 589, 592 18.22 749, 779, 780
17.230-39 162 17.321-23 306 18.23 724, 728, 731, 2712
17.230-40 128 17.322 598 18.23-24 729
17.232 163, 165 17.323 600, 602 18.24 1733
17.233 156, 169 17.324 606 18.25 730, 927
17.237 64 17.324-38 607, 664 18.26 727, 1500, 2538, 2714
17.240-47 213, 221 17.325 608, 609 18.27 368, 423, 1047, 1049,
17.242 1691 17.326 614 1630
17.244 22 17.327 612, 620 18.27-28 1050
17.246 747, 2757 17.328 620, 621 18.28 1046
17.249 225 17.331 620 18.29 67, 2714
17.250-53 238, 246 17.332 20, 639, 640, 641, 642 18.29-35 1053
17.252 247 17.332-37 642 18.30 318
17.253 254 17.332-38 657 18.31 101, 594, 1032, 1033
17.254 64, 259, 1408 17.334 609, 648 18.32 1042
17.255 270, 271, 2159 17.336 609, 661 18.32-33 3580
17.257 2736 17.337 609, 656 18.33 720, 1033, 1705
17.258 288 17.339-41 671 18.34 1500
17.259 3168 17.340 356 18.34-35 1054
17.261 295, 2079 17.341 715 18.35 1054
17.263 302 17.342 512, 670, 671, 680 18.35-89 1054
17.264 304, 307 17.343 693 18.36-37 3662
17.265 178, 318, 321, 323 17.345 677, 680 18.36-38 1054, 1587
17.267 326 17.346 686, 687, 740, 978, 3396, 18.36-39 1048
17.269 330, 333, 358, 3528 p.91 18.39-54 1053
17.270 333, 339, 3494 17.346-47 688 18.41 50
17.271 345, 423 17.347 689 18.44 1151, 2143
17.272 346 17.350 702, 706, 707 18.46 804
17.273 2097, 2883 17.355 547, 676, 718, 721, 18.52 1054
17.274 355, 358 2714 18.53 50
17.275-76 321 18 1134, 1151, 1190 18.53-54 1054
17.276 365, 367 18-19 1039, 1046, 1147 18.55 720, 1053, 1058
17.275-77 362 18-20 1054, 1397 18.56 1058
17.277 368, 370 18.1 547, 721 18.57 1076
17.278 374, 1700 18.1-2 718, 2714 18.58 1089
17.280 2097 18.1-4 727, 2538 18.59 1058, 1092, 1093, 1094,
17.282 388, 3528 18.2 718, 720 1097
17.283-84 321 18.2-11 725, 729 18.60 1099, 1103, 1105, 1108
17.284 396, 397 18.3-10 2538 18.61 1115
17.285 1321 18.4 724, 728, 784 2712 18.61-62 1115
17.288 419, 421 18.4-9 341, 731 18.63-64 1123, p.93
17.289 423 18.7 3528 18.65 1123
17.290 451 18.8 3494 18.65-84 1054
17.293 449 18.9 724 18.67 3008
17.294 321, 451 18.9-10 731 18.72 1695
17.295 474 18.11 730 18.78 2018
17.296 466 18.11-22 734 18.83 2937
17.298 476 18.12 742, 852 18.84 483
17.300 483 18.12-15 736 18.88-90 551
17.301 40 18.12-17 p.91 18.89 718, 720
17.303 502, 504 18.12-20 1000 18.90 67, 2031
17.304-14 516 18.12-22 852 18.93 690
17.305-6 33 18.13 1007, 1010 18.95 1499
17.305-7 517 18.13-14 747 18.106 362, 570, 1353, 1555
17.307-9 521 18.14 1011, 1012, 1019, 1021 18.106-08 1151
17.307-10 1332 18.14-15 975 18.108 1150, 1155
17.308 727 18.15 852, 2583 18.109 1155
17.309 1408 18.16 1020, 1023 18.109-10 708, 1155
468 index of ancient texts

18.109-15 2269 18.252-54 1168 19.107 941

18.114 1155 18.255 1155 19.110 1114
18.117 811, 866, p.89 n.h 18.255-56 1174 19.114-273 1272
18.118 688 18.256-309 1178, 1451 19.115 3037
18.119 2975 18.257 1983 19.119 2378
18.120-25 1061 18.258 1178, 1227 19.122 1088
18.121 1061, 1064 18.259 1378 19.125-26 2378
18.122 2572 18.260 157 19.126 2760
18.123 1499 18.261 1179, 1258 19.131-32 517
18.124 1027, 1039 18.261-309 1147 19.132 1322
18.126 1125, 1127, 3168 18.262 1185 19.133-36 517
18.126-236 1124, 1134 18.264-72 1220 19.136 1322
18.128 61 18.265-68 1236 19.138 2378
18.130-31 1371 18.267 2472 19.142 2821
18.130-42 1361 18.269 1189, 1258, 1270 19.148-49 2378
18.134 450, 1385 18.269-78 1178 19.151 28
18.136-37 1386 18.272 1259 19.152-53 2378
18.138 155 18.273 1221 19.156 157
18.139-40 1391 18.273-74 1257 19.158 1535, 3009
18.141 1380, 1391 18.273-78 1178 19.158-233 1282
18.143-46 1128 18.274-74 1258 19.160 2821
18.147-50 1125 18.285-86 1258 19.166 1279
18.149 1587 18.289-301 1134, 1178, 1289 19.167 1005
18.150 1125 18.294 3494 19.168-78 1316
18.158 676 18.304 1268 19.169 728
18.159-60 1378 18.305-9 1271 19.169-84 1286
18.160 579, 621 18.312 304 19.172-75 2998
18.161 621 18.321 143 19.173 1041
18.161-63 1125 18.324 2867 19.174 517
18.163 443 18.344 50 19.174-81 1285
18.164 1127 18.344-52 1155 19.175 2821
18.165 1127 18.348 1860 19.176 517
18.166 1132, 1133 18.360-62 1155 19.181 1316
18.166-67 1134 18.376 416 19.182-83 728
18.168 1140 19 1287, 1316, 1347, 1364, 19.184 1316, 2998
18.168-69 1136, 1139 1625 19.186 728, 1637
18.168-88 1141 19.1-4 33 19.187 3474
18.170 1058, 1397 19.1-211 1175, 1176 19.187-88 2998
18.171-78 1847 19.1-156 1147 19.188 1281
18.176 3528 19.2 1322 19.188-89 1285
18.177 157 19.2-3 517 19.201 1273, 3527
18.179-94 1136, 1139 19.3 1278 19.211 1274
18.184 1130 19.4 1282 19.214 1276
18.188 433, 1132, 1134 19.5 579, 621 19.215 2378
18.196 1144 19.14-113 1274 19.216-20 1275
18.202-4 35, 1144 19.15-16 1171, 1274 19.217 1276
18.203 35, 1144 19.16 61, 747, 2472 19.218-19 1277
18.204 3162, 3671 19.18-20 3580 19.221-33 1281
18.206 1139 19.28 676 19.223 490, 493, 3287
18.206-211 1133 19.30 827 19.225 1281
18.211-223 1147 19.32 1278 19.226-33 1281
18.215 1005 19.39 728 19.227 1316
18.221 536 19.42 1776 19.228-29 1281
18.224 1039, 1145 19.54 728, 1637 19.229 1312
18.226 1332, 2821 19.57 1316 19.229-33 1314
18.228-37 1149 19.63 157 19.229-44 1290
18.231 1037 19.71 827 19.230 1408
18.237 718, 1150, 1873, 2097 19.75 1322 19.232 1281, 1313
18.240-41 3657 19.75-76 493 19.233 728, 2473
18.240-46 1162 19.80 3220 19.234 1216
18.240-52 1125, 1166 19.85-86 493 19.235 1287, 1312
18.245-46 1159 19.100 728 19.236 1408
18.247-52 1164 19.101 157 19.238 1290, 1323
18.248-49 621 19.102 1299 19.238-44 1298
18.248-60 579 19.104 827 19.238-47 1323
18.252 1165 19.105 1088 19.240 1323
index of ancient texts 469

19.242 1312 20 1431, 1508, 1534, 1538, 20.127 1503

19.243 1088 1735, 1737, 1780, 1823, 20.128 1505
19.244 1298, 1323 2823 20.129 1249, 1460, 1506, 1507,
19.245 1323 20.1 1377 1508
19.245-47 1311 20.3 1691 20.130 1512, 1513, 1514
19.246 1305 20.1-16 1361 20.131 1518, 1522, 2565, 2568
19.246-47 1306 20.2-14 1379 20.132 1525
19.247 1276 20.5 1379 20.133 1528
19.248 1312, 1316 20.9 1373 20.134-35 1533
19.248-52 1282 20.9-12 2538 20.135 1534, 1536, 1537, 1612,
19.248-67 1334 20.10 1379 2538
19.249-51 1285 20.13 1357 20.136 1525, 1539, 1543, 1544
19.250 728, 1316 20.15-16 1357 20.137 720, 1546, 1549
19.251-52 1287 20.17-96 1379, 2460 20.138 362, 1394, 1553, 1555,
19.261 900 20.18 3159 1556, 1587, 3441
19.261-62 1285 20.21 499, 3657 20.139 2794, 3077
19.261-63 728 20.24-26 3159 20.141-42 708
19.263 1088, 1340 20.29 499 20.141-44 1546
19.264 1334 20.32 2097 20.143 2794
19.264-65 1349 20.34-48 2795 20.145 1359, 1987
19.265 1340, 1344 20.38 2794 20.145-46 1359
19.266 1350 20.48-9 2794 20.148 1558
19.266-68 493 20.49-53 2460 20.148-52 1536
19.268 1350 20.57 1693 20.149-50 1563, 1568
19.271 1151 20.65 2097 20.149-53 1565
19.273-76 3072 20.70 2259, 2354 20.152 1565, 1705
19.276 1378 20.70-71 1223 20.152-57 1569
19.276-77 1378 20.71 2460, 3160 20.153 1574, 1575
19.277 1357 20.75 50, 3159 20.154 1579
19.278-92 1983 20.75-77 1391 20.157 1580
19.279 1357 20.78 469 20.158 1386, 1583, 3077
19.280-85 2999 20.81 50, 2757 20.159 340, 1585
19.289 2146 20.89-90 22 20.160 637, 1642
19.293 1338, 1733 20.93-96 3159 20.160-61 328
19.293-94 1997 20.97 656, 982, 1641, 1642 20.160-64 1612
19.294 304, 2473 20.97-104 1361 20.161 645, 1467, 1477, 1591,
19.299 776, 3162 20.100 1378, 1380 1594
19.299 3671 20.100-103 1379, 3026 20.162 1612, 2090
19.300 1829 20.102 724, 2711, 2712, 2714, 20.162-64 1499
19.305 1829 2762 20.162-66 1604
19.317-25 3162, 3671 20.102-3 1397 20.163 1619
19.319 2204 20.103 1521, 2566 20.165-66 1722
19.321 2169 20.104 1357, 1382, 1384 20.167 637, 1629, 1642
19.326 1364 20.105 1398 20.168 1639
19.326-27 1364 20.106 64, 67, 1414 20.169 982, 1643, 1645, 1647
19.326-52 1361 20.106-7 1403 20.169-72 1640
19.338-42 1364 20.108 1404, 1407, 1409, 1693 20.171 1645, 1658
19.343 579, 1368 20.108-10 1412 20.172 1656, 1663
19.343-52 1367, 1684 20.110 1414 20.173 579, 1679, 1681, 1682,
19.347 1007 20.112 1412, 1419 1685, 1689
19.349 1073 20.113 1423, 1425, 2879 20.173-78 1680, 1685
19.351 992, 1167, 1368, 1370 20.114 1431 20.173-84 1681
19.352 1362 20.115 1432 20.173-203 3369
19.353 3162, 3671 20.116 1435, 1436 20.174 1705, 1706
19.354 1359, 1372, 1374, 1378 20.117 1441, 1443 20.175 1698, 1700
19.355 3072 20.118 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 20.175-76 1680
19.355-61 1475 1450, 1451, 1488 20.176 318, 1691, 1702, 1711
19.355-66 1992, 318 20.119 1459, 1497, 1503 20.176-77 1711
19.357 602 20.119-22 1461, 1470 20.177 286, 1680, 1682, 1698,
19.360-63 1374 20.120 528 1712, 1716
19.363 602, 720, 1364, 1376, 20.121 1467, 1472, 1593 20.178 1682, 1718
1705 20.122 318, 1474, 1479, 1702 20.179 1521, 2537, 2566
19.363-66 1377 20.122-24 1481 20.180 1693, 1753
19.364 602 20.123 1183, 1482, 1487, 3187 20.182 1547, 1682, 1721, 1723,
19.364-66 1701 20.124 1489 1810
19.365 1474, 1702, 1475 20.125-26 1497 20.182-84 1820
470 index of ancient texts

20.182-97 1722 3 3566 52-53 1681

20.183 1682 5 671, 690, 1328 53 1822
20.183-84 1681, 1682, 1822, 1889 7 1132 54-57 2954
20.183-97 1721 9 2620 56-57 2958
20.184 1682, 3008 10 730 57 2959, 2960
20.185 1722, 1726 10-12 686, 734, 736, 737, 740, 58 2960
20.185-86 1612 p.87 59 1681
20.185-88 1604 11 809, 2754, 3377 61 2965, 2967
20.186 1604, 1606 12 730, 1006, 1409 61-64 3454
20.187 1722 13 35, 40, 1526, 1595 62 2815
20.188 637, 1642, 1722 13-14 1380 63-66 1449
20.189-90 1994, 2162, 2163 13-16 493 64 1193, 3597, 3781
20.189-93 2538 14 936 64-65 1062
20.189-94 1221 15 617, 2815 65 1061, 2085
20.193 1705, 1722, 1724 16 579, 621, 622 66 3596
20.194 1722 17 60, 290, 549, 1528, 1633, 68 3574
20.197 720, 1705, 1724 2355 68-69 359, 3775
20.197-98 1500 20-22 2655 69 3422, 3665
20.197-99 3387 21 342, 1597, 1662, 1753, 70 3542
20.197-202 1730 2583, 2620, 2711 70-72 3425, 3454
20.198 3369 22 179, 447 70-78 3457
20.199 730, 737, 1014, 1693, 23-28 1793 71 179, 389, 2146, 3457
3396 24 1792 71-72 3454
20.200 147, 1023 25 1487, 1728 71-73 3544, 3545
20.202 147 26 688, 2827, 2868, 2878 72 2085
20.203 147, 2537 26-27 1449 74 1860, 3547, 3554
20.204 1737, 2567 26-29 3367 77 2879
20.204-10 2566 27 1256, 3361 77-78 3417, 3460, 3502
20.205-6 1521 28-29 3460 79 40, 488, 892, 1619, 3416,
20.206 1693 29 3730 3422
20.208 64, 2565, 2567 30 340, 399, 3123, 3449, 79-86 872
20.208-10 1770 3798 80 872, 1153, 1409, 1963,
20.209-10 1737 30-31 872, 3454 3657
20.210 1770 30-61 3412 80-84 3709
20.211 1723 31 1691 84 1487
20.213 1521, 1693, 2537 31-42 2822 85 3662
20.214 2634 32-33 3185, 3671, 3775 85-103 3656, 3659, 3716
20.215 35, 1737, 1740 33 1705 86 3664
20.216 147, 2030 36 1409 87 688, 3669
20.216-17 147 36-42 71 87-8 3517
20.216-18 3453 37 900 87-103 3565
20.218 2032, 2034 37-38 340 88 3669, 3670
20.223 1823, 3387 37-39 1048 89 3671, 3672
20.224-51 51 38 340, 2686, 3449 90 3458, 3503, 3598, 3674
20.241 2097 38-40 1587 91 3680
20.252-53 1767 39 179, 2146, 3123, 3449 92 3503, 3598, 3690, 3691
20.252-58 1766 40 874, 1642, 2293, 3341 92-93 3682
20.253 1768 42 56, 1256, 2822, 2827, 94 3687
20.254 1770, 1774 2828, 2829, 3453, 3787 95 3458, 3684
20.255 1758, 1779, 1780, 1782, 43-44 3517 96 3689, 3691, 3694, 3695,
1786 43-45 3454 3702
20.256 1791 43-46 3542 97 3702
20.257 1767, 1823 44 1495, 3600, 3537 97-100 872
20.258 2099 44-46 3544 99 488, 1487, 3708
20.259-68 1766 45 3517 99-103 3709
20.260 893 46 1988, 2146, 2646 100 2713, 3696, 3709
20.261 1828 46-47 2711, 3341 101 864, 2713, 3703
20.262 893, 1659 48-49 1987 101-2 842
20.262-66 2620 48-52 2951 101-3 3457
48-61 2948, 2953, 3349, 3409 102-3 3709
Life 47-61 3425 103 28
1 2882 48-63 362 104 340, 2146, 3449
1.1-6 3408 49 2949 104-11 3449
1-9 2620 49-61 2962 105 342, 408, 1190, 1470,
1-19 3566 50 1822, 2648, 3340 2642
2.192 p.86 52 1557, 2951, 2952, 3077 106 645
index of ancient texts 471

107 1896 163-66 3317 216 328, 3369

112-13 872, 3162, 3537 164 3764, 3765 216-332 3740
113 852, 2794 165 3760 220 488, 1693
114 3425 165-67 3766 222 3650
115 1191 166 3187, 3770 226 3732
115-16 3567 168 3775, 3776 227 3085, 3087
115-17 2833 169 3597, 3620, 3777, 3782 228-32 3732
115-18 2833 170 3785 230 1487
116 89 171 524, 3786, 3787 230-35 3739
117 339 172 3608, 3793 232 3449, 3739
118 408, 420, 1190, 2833, 174 3709, 3795 233 3458
3458 175 1223 234 488, 1619, 3085, 3087,
118-19 1987 177 3790 3426
119 389 177-80 2648 235 784, 3739
120-21 2114 178 3341 236 40, 147, 3732
121 1474, 1705 179 1693 241 402, 488, 1822
122 3453, 3543, 3559, 3657 180 40 242 3468
122-23 3457 181 402, 1822 244 3709
122-24 3594 182 2648, 3340 245 402, 1822
122-25 3560 185-86 3409, 3444 245-46 3732
123 784 187-88 3454 246-47 328
124 3449, 3798 189-92 2769, 3517 248 1896
126 1191, 1693, 3568, 3569, 189-96 3216 249-52 3732
3572, 3656 189-98 3656 251 15, 900
126-28 3576 189-335 3717 253 15
126-29 1409 185 1693 254 2085
126-44 3565 186 3425 254-67 3732
126-48 3569 186-88 3425 255 900, 1822
127 3573, 3574, 3575, 3578 187 3441 258 739, p.87
127-28 3578 187-88 3434 259 3709
128-30 179, 3579 188 389, 784, 3428, 3429, 260-61 402
129 3562, 3586, 3587 3430, 3431, 3437, 3439, 262-65 872
129-30 3576, 3585 3440 263 179
131 488, 3580, 3583, 3629 188-92 342 265 3620, 3696
132 271, 3590, 3599 189 3453, 3454, 3457, 3716 267 2085
132-35 3562 189-90 3718 268 1449
134 60, 3596, 3597 189-91 3542 269 435, 1449
134-36 3596 189-98 731, 736, 1449, 2583 271 3597
136 3601 189-335 3741 271-73 3732
137 3600, 3602, 3604 190 1449, 2085 271-335 3797
137-38 3605 191 730, 893, 1004, 3396 272 3671
138 271, 2803, 3606, 3608, 191-92 2955 273-74 179
3609, 3613, 3643 192 342 274 488
139 3616 193 3368, 3718 275 842, 864
140 3622 193-96 3369, 3724 277 1829
141 179 194 3723 277-89 3732
141-42 3625 195-96 3737 278 2955, 3597
141-44 3433 195-98 3732 280 1829
142-44 3425 196-98 3733 282 179
143 3631, 3633 197 730, 3396, 3730 285 1223
144 488, 3633, 3636, 3640, 197-98 3732 287 3597
3642 198 2620 287-88 179
145 3644 199 3732 290-91 3731
147 1693, 3649, 3652, 3791 199-201 3729 291 179, 1256
148 3620 200 1470, 3726 293 1607, 1829
151 524 200-201 1449 294 488, 3597
155-56 3448 202 3735 294-302 328
155-74 3744 204 3657, 3736 296 3574
155-58 3746 205 488 297-302 3732
157 3747, 3751 207 1487 298 3008
158 3748 212 2808 300 3597
159-62 3753 212-13 3458 303 1607
161 1256, 3754, 3764 213 1896, 3085, 3087 304 3689, 3695
162 3631 213-14 1194 304-8 872
163 1619, 3620, 3755, 3759, 213-15 408, 1190 309 2085, 3369
3761 214 429, 1190, 1194 313 3597
472 index of ancient texts

316 1449, 3731 414-29 252 2.27 902

317 883 415 3035 2.28-30 1640
318 1191, 3568 415-16 1983 2.28-32 2990
321 2642 416 3562 2.32 2981
324-25 3730 417-21 872 2.32-37 3035
324-26 488 418-19 40 2.33 2450, 2992
325 3528 419 488, 1487 2.35 2984
326 901 420 429, 463, 1972 2.35-36 2996
327 3084 423 493, 3657 2.35-37 2984
328 1487, 3770 426 466 2.35-38 2999
332 784, 3730, 3731, 3743, 426-28 985 2.36 2996
3744 427 466, 615 2.37 1822, 2984, 2998
333-35 3799, 3801 428-29 493 2.41 2456, 2457
336 3341 429 252, 474, 493 2.42 2984
341 584, 2085, 2822, 2827, 430 466, 754, 761, 872 2.42-43 2984
2857 392 433 2.47 219
341-42 2828, 2829 2.48 1946, 2572
342 408, 1190, 1328 Against Apion 2.61 2998
343 1987 1.4 928 2.70 2981, 2990
346 3449 1.5 1733 2.72 2984
346-47 3448 1.6 874 2.77 1240
349 2146 1.12 1983 2.80-83 305
355 1987 1.18 20, 893 2.80-84 112
356 3185 1.27 2293 2.294 p.91 n.k
357 2099 1.29-36 893, 2620 2.114 2334
362-67 1272, 1373 1.29-43 880 2.118 764
362-67 p.265 1.33 1852 2.119 764, 1022
367 158, 939 1.34 395 2.127 379, 2305
368 40, 147, 488 1.37-38 1644 2.131 2099
369 3709 1.37-43 845 2.133 1183
370 56, 399, 3711, 3713 1.41 1644 2.134 1619
370-72 3709 1.46 1408 2.135 869
371 3187, 3458, 3714 1.50 701 2.137-43 2986
371-72 3716 1.51-52 1221 2.143 1210
372 3537, 3656, 3715, 3717, 1.54 893, 2620 2.144 50, 893
3744 1.60 1266 2.145 747, 1629, 1642
373 3798 1.67 20, 893 2.145-46 866, p.87, p.89 n.h
373-80 3449, 3798 1.70 2831, 2986 2.146 760, 860, 926, p.87
375 2090 1.78 974 2.146-295 976
375-77 3798 1.99 2682 2.148 755, 866
377-80 872 1.105 966 2.151 760
378 488, 1223, 1619 1.114 1041 2.155 50
378-80 3798 1.122 2279 2.156 895
379 3620 1.125 966 2.160 997, 3525
380 1896 1.127 219 2.161 895, 1642
381 3597 1.167 1101 2.169-72 157
382-83 402 1.176 1244 2.170 781, 860
384 2090 1.179 1061 2.170-71 866, p.89 n.h
391 1691 1.182 852, 860 2.171 739, 1733
393 2085, 2358 1.183-204 2432 2.171-73 919
394 3449 1.191 2554 2.173 739, 833
395 429 1.209-12 2482 2.173-74 852, 936
397 89, 339 1.211 3525 2.175 893, 902
398 429, 724 1.213 1733, 3657 2.177-78 2620
399 429 1.223-27 2986 2.178 893
400 429 1.225 739, 974, p.87 2.179 781, 1022
402 2805 1.238 974 2.181 1016
404 534 1.271 3710 2.184 1266
405 429 1.278 429 2.185 22, 728
407 2648, 3340 1.306 804 2.185-87 2620
407-9 2648, 3349 1.318 193 2.189 827
408 488 2.8 1319 2.191 1061
409 3696 2.10 1829 2.192 739
410 408, 2822, 2827, 2828, 2.11 945 2.193-96 p.87
2829 2.12 157 2.195 830, 2258
411 3449 2.21 902 2.196 760
index of ancient texts 473

2.199 991, 996 2.232-34 928 2.276-77 893

2.199-202 p.87 2.234 1211 2.276-78 1014
2.201 758 2.235 852 2.279 880
2.202 996 2.236 71, 729, 1629 2.280-86 2511
2.203 947 2.239-41 966 2.281 760, 762
2.205 8, p.87 2.239-82 2420 2.282 902
2.208 760 2.241 157 2.282-86 3358
2.214-17 893 2.257 893 2.283 1022
2.218 1012, 3497 2.261 2600 2.284 860, 975
2.219 928 2.263 2805 2.291 760, 866, p.89 n.h
2.220 1984 2.266 827, 1728 2.293 808
2.221 382 2.271-72 928 2.293-94 p.87
2.223 739, p.87 2.272 739, 1266 2.294 376, 781, 929, p.91 n.k
2.225 860, p.86 2.273 750, 2061, p.86 2.296 874
2.227 893, 1266 2.276 2261
2.228 860, p.86

HEBREW BIBLE / OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 14:4 1857 23:13-15 915

1:26 985, 991 18:16 715 23:14 908, 911
1.28 756 20:21 715 23:15 911
10:19 2839 22:25 2572 25:5 715
37:29 2018 23:4-8 68 25:5-6 715
38:12-14 3398 23:15 258 25:12 3790
41.7 681 23:15-21 259 27:15 1061
41:14 2018 23:16 257 29:3 1637
41:51 3395 23:33-43 3140
46:20 3395 Joshua
48:5-20 3395 Numbers 7:6 2018
50:10 5 6:2-7 1997 9:3-6 3144
6:2-21 1997 9:16-27 3144
Exodus 6:9 1997 9:21-23 2671
3:18 1636 6:18 1997 10:10-11 1425
4:9 1637 11:16 3420 10:41 2839
4:17 1637 19:11 5 11:35 2018
4:27 1636 19:14 5 12:2-5 2824
4:28-30 1637 31:19 5 12:22 2831
5:1 1636 9:1-14 68 13:3 2836
7:3 1637 21:25-34 2824 15:10-57 3398
7:16 1636 28:16-20 68 15:23 2831
10:1-2 1637 28.25-31 259 19:12 3568
12:1-12 68 19:30 408
12:7 65 Deuteronomy 21:18 3568
12:19 65 1:4 2824 21:32 2831
13:7 65 2:24-30 2824
16:29 915 3:2-6 2824 Judges
18:13-22 3468 4:23 1061 1:18 2836
19:10-15 980 4:25 1061 1:31 408
20:4-6 1061, 2602 4:34 1637 13:4-18 1997
20:24 2673 6:22 1637 17-18 1061
21:24 3790 11:3 1637
27:1 2673 13:1-6 1642 1 Samuel
30:11-16 304 16:1-8 68 1:10-23 1997
34:23-25 68 16:4 65 6:17 2836
35:3 904 16:9 258 25:1 1636
16:9-11 259 26:2-3 1636
Leviticus 16:9-12 257 31:13 5
1:2 1101 16:13-16 3140
2:1 1101 16:16 70 2 Samuel
2:4 1101 17:2-5 804 1:2 2018
3:7 1101 18:15-22 1644 3:31 1482, 2018
3:14 1101 20:8 2884 4:12 3790
6:12-13 2674 21:38 1645 15:30 1648
10:6 2018 23:12-14 915 24 727
12:8 1857 23:13 908
474 index of ancient texts

1 Kings 8:14-17 3140 6:26 1482

2:35 1014 9:1 1482 7:11 342
7:13-45 2571 10:28 2034 10:14 1061
8:41-43 2571 10:34 2671 16:7-8 7
9:11-14 2571 10:34-35 2672 17:21-27 904
9:17 1425 11:21 2765 18:3 826
15:29 2831 23:14 826
16:23-24 424 Esther 32:20 1637
23:29 444 4:1-4 1482 33:7 1641
24:1 444 4:17 528 33:8 1641
33:11 1641
2 Kings Job 33:16 1641
10:1-10 2571 1:1-2:10 3522 35:1 1641
16:5 109 16:15 1482 36:1 1641
18:17 109 36:8 1640
21:1-17 3395 Psalms 47:5 2839
23:9 109 55:7 1636
23:11 804 68:6 35 Lamentations
23:19-20 804 69:7 1636 2:10 1482
23:26 3395 78:43 1637
24:10 109 78:52 1636 Ezekiel
79:11 35 8:16-19 804
1 Chronicles 102:20 35 24:17 7
6:72 3568 106:19 1061 40:46 1014
7:24 1425 146:7 35
8:5 1425 Daniel
10:12 5 Proverbs 7:9 12
12:6-7 3730 15:1 2209
25:21-22 2209 Hosea
2 Chronicles 2:1 727
2:16 109 Ecclesiastes
8:5 1425 9:8 12 Jonah
25:13 1425 3:5-8 1482
27:3 2465 Song of Songs
30:1-5 67 2:18 1467 Amos
33:13 3395 2:11-12 1997
33:14 2765 Isaiah
7:1 109 Micah
Ezra 7:6 109 4:2 109
1.1 526 35:1 1636
1:3 109 35:6 1636 Nahum
1:11 109 40:3 1636 1:14 1061
2:41-42 2034 44:28 526
3:4 3140 42:7 35 Habakkuk
7.1 526 44:9-20 1061 1:5 759
7:7 109, 2034 48:5 1061 2:5 759
10:24 2034 61:1 35
Zechariah
Jeremiah 13:2 1641
Nehemiah 5:30 826 14:1-9 1648
3:26-27 2765 6:13 1641

SEPTUAGINT (INCLUDING APOCRYPHA)

Exodus LXX Deuteronomy LXX 2 Kings LXX

12:26 2570 16:16 3140 22:21 1623
12:43 2621 25:18 3169 23:10 1783
29:33 2621
Joshua LXX 1 Chronicles LXX
Leviticus LXX 10:19 3169 28:13 2570
11:27 1623
14:4 1623 1 Kings LXX Nehemiah LXX
14:28 1623 31:8 1783 10:35 2671
22:10 2621 11:21 2765
22:13 2621 13:30-31 2671
index of ancient texts 475

Esther LXX 5:1 1637 8.22 450

4:1 2039, 3607 5:13 1637 10:25 1482, 2039, 3607
8:17 2794 6:20 1637 11:8 12
7:26 1637 11.13 2469
Job LXX 8:63 1637 12:3 1215
2:12 2039, 3607 13:44 1637 12:21 1215
17:9 1623 14.17 1783 14:27 1535
14:46 941
Psalm LXX 1 Maccabees 14:46 942
17:21 1623 1.1 746 15:8 1215
95:5 2805 1:11 2794 15:25 3326
1.14-15 2159
Isaiah LXX 1:27 1420 3 Maccabees
1:15-16 1623 1.32 1215 2:28-32 727
1:43 2570 5:3 2090
Jeremiah LXX 1.60 1215 6:24 512
6:13 1641 2:14 1482
6:21 2681 2.29-31 1636 4 Maccabees
6:26 2039, 3607 2.38 1215 p.86
33:7 1641 2:38-41 2483 1:11 931
33:8 1641 2.53 450 2:2 450
33:11 1641 3.1-8 378 2:19 188
33:16 1641 3:10 1446 3:18 927
35:1 1641 3:16-25 1425 4-7 1094
36:1 1641 3.20 1215 4:3 304
36:8 1641 3:47 1482 5:1-2 936
3:49 1997 5:7 260
Hosea LXX 3.55-4.25 388 5:13 260
7:1 1783 5.13 1215 5:23 931
5:21-23 1878 5.27-35 1094
Amos LXX 5.23 1215 6:1 934, 1653
8:10 1420 5.45 1215 6:3 3826
6:48 109 6.8-11 1094
Zechariah LXX 7:39 1425 6:9 931, 2768
8:19 2652 8.10 1215 6:12 879
13:2 1641 9.33 1636 6:16 931
9:50 1425 6:19 928
Tobit 11:59 1198 6:21 933
2:6 1420 13.2 109 6:23 1653
13.6 1215 6:25 934
Judith 13.45 1215 6:25-27 1094
4.4 1425 14:47 560 6:26 933
16:24 5 15:1 560 6:27 933
15:2 560 6:27-30 941
Wisdom 7:2 2768
859 2 Maccabees 7:4 931
6:5 826 3363, p.86 7:8 879
7:17-22 851 1:9 374 7:9 931
7:20 848 1:18 374 7:16 879
8:15 826 3.1-8 378 7:22 931
10:3 1326 4:6 2873 8:1 934
12-13 2986 4:9-10 2159 8:11 931
14:18 260 5.27 1636 8:12 934
7:3 1535 8:13 931, 1653
Sirach 7.13 2768 8:19 934
22:12 5 7:39 1535 8:24 931
4.25 512 8:25 934
Baruch 6:10 299, 1215 9:2 931
2:11 1637 6:23 941 9:8 931
4:7 2805 7 1094 9:17 931
7:1 936 9:20 934
1 Esdras 7:11 941, 942 9:26 934
8.24 897 7:14 942 9:30 512, 931
7:23 942 10:5 934
2 Esdras 7.27 512 10:7 934
2:40 12 7:29 942 10:14 933
476 index of ancient texts

10:18 934 14:11 927 16:22 931

10:20-21 941 14:12 931 17:7 879
11:1 2768, 3826 15.9 2768 17:10 879
11.27 1653 15:10 879 17:12 931
12:3 931 15:14 931 17:23 931
12:11 931 15:19 931 18:14 933
12:13 2768, 3826 15:20 931 18:20 512
12:19 941 15:22 933
13:1 879 15:24 931 1 Enoch
13:27 879, 2769 15:25 931 7.1 845
13:27 2768 16:1 879 8.3 845
14:1 927, 2768 16:4 933 10.4-8 845
14:4 931 16:17 931

PHILO

188, 247, 286, 289, 327, 95 778 22 3826

360, 445, 549, 651, 859, 119 3399 40 838
939, 985, 1094, 1186, 74 98
1211, 1240, 1316, 1535, De confusione linguarum 75 2172
1633, 1665, 1673, 2061, 13 1456 124 1673
2181, 22062759, 2821, 38 3238 148 833
3238, 3461, 3543, 3621, 41 2652
3696, p.86, p.89, p.93, 43 193 De migratione Abrahami
p.94 111 3399 12.4-5 171
134 953 14 61
De aeternitate mundi 155 1456 132 838
125 1673 144 3169
De congressu eruditionis gratia 175 812
Apologia pro Iudaeis / Hypothetica 16.1 963
686, 738, p.85, p.92 118 98 De mutatione nominum
14-17 749 6 912
De decalogo 60 193
Arithmetica (fragmenta) 60.2 375 119 942
62a 3771 108 3399 135 61
125 2161
De Abrahamo De opifi cio mundi
81 688 De ebrietate 1.79 2331
104 2768 7 2625 1.88 2331
115 1570 24 3169 12 974
155 988 29 61 73 866
182 360 44 833 103 3771
183 926, p.87 n.e 66 1326 116 804
183.2 376 115 2364
213 2197 129 828 De providentia (fragmenta)
221 3540 135 897, 2504 1.1 1628
249 2181 152 828 2.71 2797
260 48 174 1700
De plantatione
De agricultura De fuga et inventione 45-46 928
1.70 2331 14 3312 46 833
21 1326 41.4 260 61 3399
84 838 60 1326 83 2358
113 3447 114 193 151 730
155 2143 136 912 157 1456
157 3447 153 1610 175 893

De cherubim De gigantibus De posteritate Caini

3 964 28 688 50 1326
5 866 81 1456
6 3399 De Iosepho 97 61
7 3399 5 3657 109 688
52.7 1326 13 1326 112 171
88 833 21 2181 120 171
index of ancient texts 477

128 866 2.154 3771 1.305 757, p.85 n.b

2.163 2331 1.328 61
De praemiis et poenis 2.167 2570 2.19 1266
25 912 2.193 812, 1153 2.35 1983
68 1326 2.209 819 2.133 803
72 1326 2.232 897 2.154 1099
74 1326 3.10 1099 2.172 1248
87 193 3.16 1326 2.185 866
124 2261 3.18 1326 2.197 1248
136 3771 3.29 2873 2.273 1248
162 866 3.61 2529 2.280 1644
3.84 973
De sacrifi ciis Abelis et Caini 3.104 1456 Hypothetica (see Apologia)
1.49 2331 3.106 3678
6 3399 3.166 1456 In Flaccum
7 3399 3.178 3399 5 1490
18 193 4.82 838 40 2625
28 2625 4.99 2331 44 2358
35 193 4.107 182 48 57
45 743 4.127 57, 503 50 2504
117 819 4.129 1153 55 2992, 3035
119 3399 4.173 1456 69 360, 3706
130 193 4.190 893 69 3706
135 3719 4.202 193, 2143 74 2990
4.205 689 84 2768
De sobrietate 4.213 893 96 2768
68 812 109-110 2450
De virtutibus 121 3326
De somniis 1 2364 141 2168
1.8 1610 1.41 2331 163 2442
1.17 1610 33 928 178 1931
1.36 838 46 1700
1.72 912 75 61 Legatio ad Gaium
1.103 57 114 3771 10 953
1.106 193 122 2813 12-14 1174
1.116 912 156 992 68 3399
1.215 803 158 992 75 1174
1.223 3657 176 3771 79 1174
1.239 912 181 171 81-114 1174
2.43 98 199 1326 87 188
2.83 2331 210 833 94 2625
2.130 953 96 3326
2.166 193 De vita contemplativa 110 3326
2.182 2625 p.94 114-18 1225
122 838 18 762 119 193
158 2728 21 1983 120 2981
187 804 33 503 150 2442
66 12, 778 157 1240
De specialibus legibus 129 730 162 1173
1.14 833 162-70 2986
1.54 2529 De vita Mosis 169 1110
1.57 1248 1.9 2628 170 2981
1.192 1153 1.25 2331 183 833, 2873
1.272 819 1.32 3719 188-348 1178
1.298 846 1.36 543 194 2990
1.315 260 1.40 2197 199-203 1173
1.315 1642 1.66 912 205 2836
2.9 838 1.111 2197 207 1185
2.18 2331 1.160 2358 213 866
2.67 688 1.177 2331 221-22 1218
2.69 2813 1.195 2278 225-27 1214
2.82 833 1.247 528 288 3771
2.94 838, 2768 1.259 1700 232 260
2.132 819 1.263 469 234 1326
2.134 819 1.270 2331 234-36 1243
2.147 2331 1.276 2805 239 22
478 index of ancient texts

248-49 1257 3.193 61 12 2261

248-337 1269 887d-e 804 23 p.91
249 1258 23-25 p.91
257 1258 Questiones et solutions in Genesin 1 25 2768
281-82 615 frag. 69. 1016 30 926, 927, p.87 n.e
290-93 1064 38 746
290-98 1061 Questiones et solutions in Genesin 4 43 733
293 1456 frag. 51b 833 45 780
297 2571 57 833
298 260, 1064 Questiones et solutions in Exodum 57-71 686, 738
299-305 1057 2.19 1266 73-74 733
301 1061 21 1110 75-91 733, p.91
317 1240 32 3498 76 751, 784
322 759 77 762
338 2442 Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 88 746
349 2990 21.2 260 95 2261
349-72 3010 74.4 988 120 928
357 1240 96 1326 125 1983
176 1456
Legum allegoriae Quis rerum divinarum heres sit
1.73 2331 Quod Deus sit immutabilis 85 833
1.86 2628 166 193 110 819
2.100 3254 182 61 247 812
2.199 2602 278 3399
3.73 833 Quod omnis probus liber sit 301 833
3.82 828 746, p.91
3.171 1016 2-7 p.91

FRAGMENTARY JUDEAN TEXTS

Ezekiel the Tragedian

Exagoge [Snell]
197 826
219 826

OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) Joseph and Aseneth Testament of Naphtali

9.20 1648 10.16 1482 5.1 1648
13.3 1482
Epistle of Aristeas 14.12 1482 Testaments of the Twelve Patriachs
246 1928 6.9.7 1628
42 2571 Jubilees
51-82 2571 10.10-14 845

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

CD 20.1 p.94 1-4 p.94

p.84 1.1-10 p.94
1-2 p.94 1QM 1.11-13 762
7.6-7 749 p.94 2.19-23 918
9.18-22 780 1.2-3 1633 6.12 780
10.20-21 915 7.4-5 749 6.14 780
12.15-17 773 7.6-8 915 6.14-23 859
12.23-13.1 p.94 7.7 915 6.19-23 762
13.11 780 7.9-10 12 6.20 780
13.16 780 13.1 918 7 901
14.3-4 918 7.13-15 901
14.3-6 780 1QpHab 8.13-14 1636
14.6 780 p.94
14.12-16 762 1QSa
14.19 p.94 1QS 1.4 749
15.8-14 780 p.84
index of ancient texts 479

11QT 4Q91 f1
45.11-12 749 915 915
46:13-16 915
55.15-21 804 4QMMT L 51
1014 915

MISHNA, TALMUD, AND RELATED LITERATURE

Mishna and Tosefta 1.5-6 3420 b. Nazir

2.4 3420 45a 2588
m. Avodah Zarah
2.6 3549 m. Sheqalim b. Nedarim
3.16 1010 1.1 304 6a 1101
1.3 304 13a 1101
m. Bikkurim 1.5 2572 15b 1101
1.2 1604 2.5 1105 16a 1101
2.3 1604 4.2 1105 20a 1101
7.6 2572 66a 1101
m. Gittin
5.6 1604 m. Shabbat b. Niddah
1.4 2781 66a 993, 994
m. Hagigah 7.2 905
2.4 1014 b. Pesahim
m. Sotah 57a 1500
m. Kelim 9.9 1467 65b 2671
17.12 374 85b 2588
m. Ta‘anit 92a 2588
m. Keritot 2790
1.7 1500 4.5 2671, 2672 b. Sanhedrin
14 2790 32b 1425
m. Menahot IX: Kislev 1097 57a 1061
5.3 2572 103b 1061
5.5 2572 m. Yadayim
5.6 2572 4.6-7 1014 b. Shabbat
6.1 2572 25a 1101
9.8 2572 m. Yoma 33b 2781
10.3 1014 1.1-7 1014
b. Sotah
m. Middot m. Zevahim 47a 1467
1.4 2590 4.5 2572
2.3 2588 b. Temurah
2.5 2588 t. Menahot 6b 1101
2.6 2590 13.18 1500 13a 1101
3.1-4 2673 28b 1061

m. Nazir Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds b. Yevamot

1.3 2002 17b 715
4.7 1997 b. Avodah Zarah
2a 1061 b. Yoma
m. Niddah 25a 2781 9a 1521
1.4 994 11a 2588
4.2 1014 b. Bekhorot 19a 2588
24a-b 901 19b 1014
m. Parah 57a 1061 30b 2588
3.3 1014 31a 2588
b. Gittin 37a 2588
m. Qiddushin 56a 1604, 2781 38a 2588
4.14 2781
b. Ketubbot b. Zevahim
m. Rosh HaShanah 65a-b 2781 35a 2671
1.1 1394 66b 2781
1.3-7 1826 67a 2781 y. Demai
2.1-8 1826 2.1.22c 1698
b. Mesi‘a
m. Sanhedrin 86b 2781 y. Yevamot
1.4 3423 1:1 [2b] 715
480 index of ancient texts

OTHER RABBINIC WORKS

Seder Olam Rabbah

30 395

Tanhuma
715
CHRISTIAN WRITERS

New Testament

Matthew Luke 4:4 1449

2:23 423 1:4 883 4:9 1446
5:33-37 843 1:26-27 423 4:48 1637
5.39 2209 2:1-2 718 5:2 2062
7:5 3525 2:1-5 33 6:4 67
7:15 1641 2:2 2714 7:2 3140
10:10 787 2:24 1857 7:31 1637
10:10-11 786 3:1 1054, 1556 7:50 2781
12:1 681 3:14 3491 8:1-11 1411
13:19 1741 3:19/1 1155 8:48 1446
14:3 1155 3:20 1155 9:7 2142
16:13 1044 4:18 35 9:11 2142
17:12 12 4.31–32 1934 11:47-48 1637
17:24-27 304 5.23–24 1934 11:55 67
19:10-12 749 6:1 681 12:1 67
20:17-18 109 6:20-23 513 13:1 67
22:21 2619 6:42 3525 16:2 2570
22:17 33, 2537 7:8 1238 19:1-16 1971
23:13 3525 7.18–23 1934 19:14 67
23:15 3525 7:30 3730 19:39 2781
23:23 3525 9:3 787
24:11 1641 9:3-5 786 Acts
26:17 67 9:51-6 1449 1525
2:59 2085 10:3-7 786 1:8-12 1648
27:6 1101 10:25 3730 2:28 1637
27:15-18 35 10:29-37 1446, 1449 2:29 1762
28:3 12 10:30 788 2:44-45 762
11:16 1637 3:2 2588
Mark 11:45-52 3730 3:10 2588
1:3-4 1636 13:1 189, 1241 4:1 1014
1:9 423 14:3 3730 4:1 2568
1:12 1636 17:7 689 4:27 1054
2:23 681 17:11 1449 4:29 1762
3:7 1014 20:22 2537 4:31 1762
6:8 787, 1115 20:25 2619 4:34-37 762
6:10-11 786 20:56 35 5:17 1014
6:17 1155 20:63 35 5:24 2568
6:17-28 1155 22:1 67 5:26 2568
7:11 1101 22:4 2568 5:37 341, 718, 724
8:11-12 1637 22:7 67 7:36 1637
8:27 1044 22:50 35 11:28-30 1379
10:46 1449 22:52 2568 12:20-23 1367
11:1 1449, 1648 22:60 2085 13:6 1641
12:14 2537 23:2 2537 15:22 3671
12:17 2619 24:13 388 15:27 3671
12:18 1014 24.19 1934 15:32 3671
13:3 1648 16:19 3671
13:22 1637, 1641 John 17:31-33 1012
14:1 67 1:45 423 20:31 992
14:12 67 2:13 67 21:23-26 1997
14:25 1648, 2085 2:18 1637 21:38 1604, 1640
15:1 2085 2:23 67, 1637 22:23-23:30 1401, 1525
15:15 1971 3:1-9 2781 23:8 1014
16:1-12 1014 3:2 1637 23:22-23 3133
index of ancient texts 481

23:23-24:27 1595 James Constantini imperatoris oratio ad coetum

23:24-26 1546 1:6 1673 sanctorum
23:31-38 1401, 1525 1:26-7 260 26.2 820
24:22-27 1546
24:27-26:32 1723 2 Peter Demonstratio evangelica
24:47 1723 2:1 1641 8.122-123 1057
25:1 1722
25:6 1722 1 John Historia ecclesiastica
25:9 1722 4:1 1641 1.9 1054
25:13 1359, 1987 2.6.4 1055
25.13-14 1722 Revelation 2.6.6 1101, 1103
25:23 1359, 1987 1:14 12 2.10.3 108
27:1 1058 3:4 12 2.19 1419
27:2-28:1 617 3:5 12 2.20 1609
28:31 1762 3:18 12 2.26.2 2861
4:4 12 3.5.2-3 2826
Romans 6:11 12 7.15.1 108
12:1 2570 7:9 12 8.1.8 416
13.1 870 7:14 12
16:13 1641 Onomasticon
1 Corinthians 19:14 12 32.16 2822
1:22 1637 112-13 1046
5:3-5 891 NT Apocrypha
7:7-8 749 Praeparatio evangelica
7.32-35 749, 758 Acts of Thomas 8.10.15 1099
9:5-6 749 135 1482 8.11 985
9:10 689 8.11 [379a] 784
11:27-30 891 Acts of John 8.11 [379b] 686, 751
15:35-51 1012 85 1628 8.11 [379c-d] 742
8.11 [379d] 746, 801, 808
2 Corinthians Acts of Paul and Thecla 8.11-12 [379-84] 686
2:5-11 891 11 1628 8.11 [380a] 790
8.11 [380d] 738
Galatians Augustine 8.11 [380d-81a] 749, 758
1:13-14 1380 De civitate Dei 8.11 [381a] 738
2:14 2794 4.27 973 9.3 [407c] 932, 978
3:28 1380 4.31 973 9.22.5 2794
4:-12 792 6.4-6 973
22.4-5 1012 Ignatius
Colossians To the Ephesians
2:17 171 Clement of Alexandria 2.8.2 3719
2:18 260 Paedagogus
3.11 [73.5] 1609 To the Magnesians
1 Thessalonians 10 2794
1:1 3671 Stromata 11.1 1054
1.15.72 1061
2 Thessalonians 4.22.142 12 To the Philadelphians
1:1 3671 5.14.130 485 5 1641
7.15.89 2794
1 Timothy To the Smyrnaeans
2:9 791 Clement of Rome 1.2 1054
2:11 1054 Homiliae
5.2.3 3678 To the Trallians
Titus 6.2-3 1628
3:9 3730 Cyril of Alexandria 9.1 1054
3:13 3730 Commentarii in Joannem
2.659 1055 John Chrysostom
Philemon 1482
3:2-11 1380 Epistle to Diognetus
1.1 376 De Christi precibus
Hebrews 10.7 376, 1628 48.793.37 1005
8:5 171
10:1 171 Eusebius Justin
10:39 1771 818 Apologia
27.2 34
482 index of ancient texts

Dialogus cum Tryphone Origen Ps-Clement

8.1 883 Contra Celsum Homiliae
48.1 1604 5.14 1012 1.20.2 108
4.1.1 108
Institutiones Exhortatio ad martyrium 13.7.2 108
4.18.5 1604 20 928

Homiliae in Jeremiam
17.1 3519

GREEK TEXTS

Achilles Tatius Aeschines Choephori

Leucippe et Clitophon 923, 1363 313 2099
1.6.1 830 516 1456
2.24.3 543 De falsa legatione 1010 2099
3.5.6 3632 33 543 1024 555
4.14.4 1083 37 193
5.12.3 941 70 2261 Fragmenta [Mette]
7.13.1 377 80 193 44A fr. 530 555
8.10.4 1095 148 1623
Prometheus vinctus
Aelian Eumenides 218 485
De natura animalium 313 1623 637 1885
1.5 3336 966 2570
1.23 946 In Ctesiphonem
2.9 946 11 1309 Septem contra Thebas
2.11 932 14 779 8 849
2.21 946 25 779 723 3771
5.40 946 29 779 841 3771
6.31 946 77.10 12
8.3 3336 79 688 Supplices
8.19 3336 117 2805 631 3771
10.14 946 122 822
17.17 3336 123 2805 Aetius
165 2358 Iatricorum
Tactica 226 1456 7.36.24 910
2.8 2657 8.16.12 910
30.3 1771 In Timarchum 15.15.479 910
21 779
Varia historia 23 803 Agatharchides
12.1 3632 286
12.32 12 Aesop
950 De mari Erythraeo
Aelius Dionysius 24 528
Attica onomata Fabulae
Z.5 853 22.1-3 157 Albinus
29 2181 Epitome doctrinae platonicae (Didaska-
Aelius Herodianus (Herodian) 97.3 2090 likos)
Partitiones 246 2099 14.6 804
p.52 963 299.1 689
336 2170 Alcidamas
Aelius Theon Fragmenta
Progymnasmata Sententiae 5.41 818
129 4 1059
60 981 Alexander Polyhistor
Aeschylus 2794
Aeneas Tacticus 286
Poliorcetica Fragmenta
3.6 1215 Agamemnon 140.67 945
5.1 1215 533 2099 140.102-104 948
23.4 3447 1313 2133
32.11 3236 1387 3771
index of ancient texts 483

Anaximenes 2.11.72 3497 De pronominibus

Ars rhetorica vulgo, rhetorica ad Alex- 2.13.91 3363 2.1.1.53 1928
andrum 2.18.131 2161 2.1.1.92 1771
17.2 1008 2.19.140 543
2.21.149 555 Apollonius of Rhodes
Andocides 2.21.150 1254 1310
De mysteriis 2.146 776 Argonautica
107 1827 3.2.13 543 1.746 1063, 1233
142 1456 3.2.19 1535 1.759ff 971
3.6.42 56 1.1137 3813
In Alcibiadem 4.1.2 2161 2.986 3037
21 3510 4.2.8 105 4.1672 1233
22 42 4.9.70 795
4.9.73 897 Aristeas
Anthologia Graeca 4.16 543 100 883
11.407 913 4.128 543
5.1.10 2642 Aristides
Antiochus 5.4.36 376, 926, p.86 n.e 1363, 2705
Fragmenta 5.7 694
7.113 757 5.75.318-19 727 Παναθηναϊκός
7.115 757 5.96 151 117.33-34 893
117.155.29 893
Antiphon Celtica p. 140 3312
De caede Herodis 1.2 2344
11 1623 1.9 376, 926, p.86 n.e Πρὸς Λεπτίνην ὑπὲρ ἀτελείας
82 1623 10.1 1073 166 2181
93 375
Illyrica Ῥώμης ἐγκώμιον
De choreuta 38 1254 12 2423
7 866 40 3363
51 866 61 3706 Aristonicus
De signis Iliadis
Tetralogia Keltikes 2.193 791
2.2.11 866 2 2359 17.126 795

Antisthenes Libyca De signis Iliadis, scholion

Fragmenta 77 1083 4.h137-41 2461
117 3541 304-5 3363
375 3323 De signis Odysseae
Apion 401 3323 4.556 957
Fragmenta de glossis Homericis 471 889
74.237.16 2728 495 3657 Aristophanes
499 889 286, 900, 939
Appendix Proverbiorum
66.66 913 Macedonica Acharnenses
7.1 3363 155-61 2794
Appian 344 3151
286, 1325, 2705, 3696 Mithridatica 384 2625
5 3363 436 2625
Annibaica 94 2233 1096 2625
93 1535 107 3363
177-78 3363 109 3363 Aves
110 512 379 2310
Basilica 182 3363 1060 3771
1.2 543 328 889, 3312
445 401 Ecclesiazusae
Bella civilia 842 1673
1.5.41 3363 Numidica
1.7.55 543 2.1 1975 Equites
1.7.58 543 387 901
1.10.94 2696 Syriaca 1351 2310
1.11.96 1535 62 2396
1.59 387 Fragmenta
1.120 463 Apollonius Dyscolus 625-26 2035
2.3.21 3706 De adverbiis
2.8.53 1083 2.1.1.187 1771
484 index of ancient texts

Lysistrata 4.16 3093 1314e 527

1110 946 1315a 2469
Ethica eudemia 1315b 527
Nubes 1214a 2805 1316b 2172, 2606
530 597 1221a 3657 1317b 1637
1047 901 1222b 743 1320b 2205
1227b 743
Plutus Problemata
29 3522 Ethica nichomachea 920b 3147
326 485 747 929b 1099
3.1.6 1009 956b 988
Ranae 3.3.3-5.2 1010 963a.21 838
129 301 3.5.2 1009
360 1673 1105b 1008 Rhetorica
387 485 1119a 527 1366a 22
485 301 1124b 1931 1370b 1420
1145b 745 1371a 688
Thesmophoriazusae 1149a 745 1372b 499
205-6 1735 1373b 1008
Fragmenta varia 1380b-1381a 40
Aristotle 8.44.533 2464 1383b 1637
115, 327, 549, 651, 732, 8.47.615 2461 1386b 3657
859, 886, 1110, 1325, 9.56.665 443 1387b 3657
2504, 3281 9.56.670 1928 1389a-b 1409
1393a 733
Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία Historia animalium 1398a 2805
2.3 528 595a 889
12.3 2989 632b 461, 1833 Topica
54.3 779 635b.3 838 109b 3657
55.2 779 125b 838
Magna moralia
De caelo 2346 Aristoxenus
280a 3147 1.34.17 2172 651
305a 943
Meteorologica Arius Didymus
De divinatione per somnum 362b 2278 Liber de philosophorum sectis
49 688 983b 974 65.2 1008
1022b 1827 87.2 98
De generatione anamalium
750a 1099 Physiognomonica Arrian
806b 375 286, 1114, 2705, 3254
De longitudine et brevitate vitae 807a 375
921 Alexandri anabasis
Poetica 1.25.6 461
De mirabilibus auscultationibus 1449b 1244 2.16-24 1495
840b 528 1449b 543, 1485, 2908, 3617 2.20.9 3336
846b 2805 1452b 1244 2.22.5 3336
1452 543, 1485, 2908, 3617 4.10.5-12.5 2258
De mundo 1453a 543, 1485, 2908, 3617
391a 2805 1453a 543, 1485, 2908, 3617 Cynegeticus
391b 974 1453a-b 1244 7.3 461
393a 3650 1453b 543, 1485, 2908, 3617
393b 953 1456a 970 Epicteti dissertationes (diatribai)
396b 2989 1456b 1244 1.6.24 2262
397a 2494 1460a 536 1.26.11 3151
397b 1180 2.2.3 833
Politica 2.9 812
De partibus animalium 1259b 866 2.9.19-21 2855
672b 1833 1279b 1570, 2690 2.10.15 791
693a 889 1284a 966 2.16.45 1153
1295a 1570 2.19 812
De respiratione 1303b 2205 2. 21.11 791
470b 375 1305a 1304 3.22.2 843
1305b 2606 3.22.87 852
Epistulae 1312a 966 3.22.53 843
3 686 1313a 527 3.22.94 3497
index of ancient texts 485

3.26.8-23 157, 1934 75 826 63.4.1 26

3.26.37-39 1934 178 l. 23 686 63.4.2 778
4.1.12-14 22 63.8.1-11.1 1578
4.1.19 528 In Dianam 64.9.3 607
4.1.70 926, p.86 n.e 161 689 65.15.3-5 1373
4.1.71 376, 926, p.86 n.e 66.15.1 804
4.7.33 759 In Jovem 66.15.4 1359
4.9.10 3151 66 686 66.18.1 1359
4.13.22 3151 66.19.3 607
Cassius Dio 67.4.6 2413
1325, 2461, 2705, 3254 69.13.2 1963
Fragmenta 8.36.29 864 74.1.4 778
42b-c 1771 10.40.45 1188 77.21.2 978
27.16.4 304 79.18.1-3 607
Historia Indica 27.91.4 1904
23.3 3336 36.11 20 Chariton
36.23.3 1188 De Callirhoe narrationes amatoriae
Tactica 37.14.3 3046 7.3.11 3632
3.3 2657 38.11.3 1212
15.1 2657 43.38.1 p.86 n.e De Chaerea et Callirhoe
26.4 1771 44.6 3709 4.3.8 1928
46.26.2 p.86 n.e 5.1.8 1928
Arrian of Nicomedia 46.28.5 p.86 n.e
Periplus ponti euxini Chion
48.20 151
9.3 2310
48.28 151 Epistulae
43.38.1 376, 926 16.2 2090
Artemidorus
46.26.2 376, 926
Onirocriticon
46.28.5 376, 926 Chrysippus
1363
48.49 151 549, 651, 1007, 3281
1.2.96 913
49.30-31 3236
2.9 12
49.32.3 694 Fragmenta
2.14 838
50.6.4 3363 1004.11 1014
2.47 838
50.19.5 323
2.69 1641
3.33 838 51.1.5 3363 Fragmenta ad singulos libros relata
3.35 838 51.15.6 699 9.2 1095
4.5 838 52.41.3-4 1328
4.57 838 53.3 491 Fragmenta logica et physica
53.26.2 699 572 1099
Asclepiodotus 53.29 2367 990 833
10.21 1771 54.5.1 2367 989 2172
54.8 149 1157 2181
Tactica 54.11 2367
1.4 1403 54.16.1-2 985, 991 Fragmenta moralia
2.7-10 380 54.18 149 265 1322
18 407 54.18.13 727
54.20.3 2367 SVF Fragmenta
Athenaeus 54.34.4 2325 657 1610
Deipnosophistae 54.34.36 727
135 55.9 149 Claudius Ptolemaeus
3.91 838 55.27.6 669, 673 618
4.149d-e 12 55.28.3 699 Geographia
6.107 866 56.1-2 749 5.15.5 1195
7.48 3336 58.2.1 1033 5.16.2 108
11.46 1180 59.2.6 1174 5.16.4 264
12.80 3678 59.6.2 1280 5.16.9 1046
13.54 992 59.13.3 1282 8.20.14 108
14.1 461 59.24.1 1135
14.50 1180 59.30.1 1273 Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus
14.621b 12 60.1.1 1282 De natura deorum
15.31.42 912 60.34.3 1558 830
61.34.2-3 1559
C. Cassius Longinus 62.14.3 1547 Critias or Euripides?
30 1377 62.23.3 26 Sisyphus
62.25 376 973
Callimachus 62.25.1 926
Aetia, fragmenta 62.25.2 p.86 n.e
486 index of ancient texts

Critodemus Contra Timotheum In Neaeram

Fragmenta 15 790 77 503
5.2: 53.1 376 35 866
60 1623 Olynthiaca
Curtius Rufus 1.6 2170
Historiae Alexandri Magni De Chersoneso 2.1 2805
5.1.22 685 38 893 2.3 2170
51 2170 3.3 2170
Cyranides 3.11 2170
1.7.19 850 De falsa legatione 3.20 3541
1.8.26 850 103 2263 3.36 2183
1.10.95 850 115 2263 9 2331
1.17.16 850 118 2263 10.1 2183
4.60 775 198 223
4.69 775 248 3757 Περὶ τῶν πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον συνθηκῶν
256 2805 17.23.6 56
Demades 295 3540
Fragmenta 357 3520 Philippica
124 2694 1 2165
De pace 3.1 2358
[Demetrius] 18 2090 3.4 2170
De elocutione 3.16 866
16 2188 Epistulae 3.47 2220
27 2533 2.4 503 3.54 2805
29 2533 18 2170 4.1 2183
216 225
232 1928 Exordia Pro Megalopolitanis
237 512 4.1 2183, 2187 32 2183
240-59 2713 39.2 2805
283 2254 52.1 2183 Didymus (Alexandrian grammarian)
291 176 54.1 866 In Demosthenem
297 225 41.41 504
In Aphobum
4 893 Dinarchus
In Demosthenem
In Aristocratem 82 1672
Fragmenta 97 866 84 866
89 2465 103 1059 104 1672
148 893
Demosthenes In Philoclem
115, 549, 939, 1363, In Cononem 14 1300
1642, 2346, 2531, 2876 1 866
5 822 Dio Chrysostom
Adversus Androtionem 7 866 134, 286, 2759, p.86,
4.1 2165 10 1757 p. 94
20 2358
Adversus Leptinem 126 866 Orationes
48 1985 246 2170 1.79 26
249 1672 2.7 963
Aristogitonem 262 3525 2.19 1642
1.15 3147 276 1642 2.56 757, p.85 n.b
1.45 1266 286 28 3.2 p.93
60 3520 312 28 3.3 1762
321 1309 3.28 2165
Contra Boeotum 3.29-34 2242
1.41 866 In Midiam 3.51 2815
59 3510 3.51.9 822
Contra Callidem 62 3510 4.106 897
17 1833 109 2143 5.15.5 822
25 1985 174 790 7.23 822
176 897 7.89 1928
Contra Leocharem 177 1266 12.59 2282
6 1564 185 1757 13.1-2 1762
262 193 15.30.3 822
Contra Nausimachum et Xenopeithea 16.3.14 822
12 98 17.1 2165
index of ancient texts 487

25.2 56 Diodorus Siculus 5.19.5 1570

30.14 56 Bibliotheca 5.29.2 376, 926, p.86 n.e
30.42 822 115, 135, 188, 286, 289, 5.41.4ff 804
31.17 963 299, 360, 445, 859, 900, 5.49 963
31.92 963 1007, 1074, 1248, 1325, 5.59.4 1827
31.94 2504 1344, 1363, 1535, 1633, 5.76.1 2278
31.113-14 2199 2061, 2759, 2821, 2876, 5.79.2 866
31.125 2199 2879, 2883, 2973, 3018, 6.6.1 866
32 p.267 n.i 3281, 3482, 3673, 3696 6.8.1 866
32.1 2440 1.2.2 866, 966, 973 7.33.3 1885
32.1-2 2187 1.9.5 966 9.4.2 1653
32.4 2440 1.17.2 2917 9.19.1 299
32.7 2440 1.23.7 618, 974 9.60.3 1885
32.11 1642 1.25.4 966 11.2.1 2310
32.17-18 2440 1.29.6 974 11.3.7 2310
32.24 2187 1.31.6-8 2432 11.8.2 1535
32.26 2442 1.49.3 866 11.11.4 3771
32.33 2187 1.55.2 2310 11.12.3 2310
32.39 1642 1.57.6 1215 11.13.4 1215
32.88 2504 1.67.6 1215 11.14.4 2805, 2815
33.2 963 1.68.3 3710 11.20.2-3 2310
34 2201 1.71.4 1215 11.24.2 2310
34.9 2201 1.73.9 2662 11.28.5 1215
34.40-41 2201 1.86.2 974 11.31.2 1535
34.51 2199
1.88.6 1215 11.39.1 1215
36.22 2504
1.90.3 2805 11.39.6 1885
36.24-5 2187
1.90.3 2815 11.47.2 893
37.4 3363
1.92.5 866 11.57.2 1827
38 p.267 n.i
2.1.10 1215 11.61.3 1059
38.4 2210
2.5.6 2310 11.63.2 2805
38.4-5 2187
2.26.2 3710 11.68.2 2310
38.12.4 822
38.21-32 2196 2.26.7 2151 11.76.2 1135
46 p.267 n.i 2.29 730 11.78.4 1827
46.1 2187 2.39.2 1700 11.86.4 1653
48.14 1577 2.40.5 1215 11.87.5 1059
52.15 147 2.55-60 804 12.4.5 2310
52.40.2 1328 2.156 973 12.7.1 57
53.27 152 3.5.1 2815 12.17.5 1885
54.6 152 3.6.4 188 12.20.3 866
55.9-10 152 3.15.2 1215 12.41.5 1535
55.24.3 2335 3.18.2 3399 12.42.2 1215
55.27.6 671 3.18.5 1215 12.46.7 1215
58.25.2 1792 3.24.3 1215 13.54.1 2310
59.12.2 1557, 2951 3.32.1 1215 12.62 897
59.27.3-4 2397 3.38.2 2278 12.79.5 1085
60.19.2 2389 3.53.3 1215 13.19 1144
61.1.2 1565 3.54.4 1215 13.23.4 2151
63.1.2-6.1 2466 3.60.2 866 13.47.8 57
65.12.2 1762 3.64.7 866 13.57.1 1827
66.5 26 4.1.1 963, 2341 13.62.6 2310
66.9 9 4.1.2-3 966 13.87.5 822
68 157 4.8.3 893 13.88.7 1099
68.5 2172 4.11.2 1827 13.95.4 822
69.8.1 676 4.17.4 3555 13.107.3-4 2310
68.8.2 3349 4.26.3 1700 14.5.7 1931
68.19-20 3349 4.31.1 1215 14.12.1 1304
68.26.1-4 166 4.32.2 2310 14.12.4 512
70.3 157 4.38.3 1827 14.17.3 3710
70.9 2170 4.44 1144 14.21.2 323
71.2 2504 4.44-5 963 14.47.7 2310
71.32.2 676 4.55.1 1215, 1827 14.53.2 1968
75.4 56 4.71.2 1885 14.65.4 2261
77 1642, 2261, 2813 4.85.7 963 14.66.5 2261
78.34 1642 5.7.7 866 14.69.1 1456
78.37 2261 5.8.3 866 14.74.4 822
78.142 2813 5.12.4 2310 14.105.4 833
488 index of ancient texts

15.5.1 1885 20.72.5 2143 7.104 743

15.9.4 2263 20.87.3 1535 7.126 866
15.15.4 1827 20.97.6 342 7.139 804
15.17.4 2151 22.13.4 1085 7.149 1007
15.27.2 879 22.13.5 1535 7.191 731
15.36.4 1085 24.12.2 2805 8.59 777
15.40.1 1059 25.19.1 2001 9.3 777
15.48.2 1527 26.15.1 512 10.117 499
15.55.4 1535 26.12.2 688 33.16.2 2917
15.57.3 2151 27.15.3 883 37.21.1 2917
15.58.4 1527, 2805 28.3.1 2469 117.11.4 2917
15.66.4 3710 29.7.1 2220 117.21.2 2917
15.86.3 926, p.86 n.e 30.9.3 2254
15.93.3 1099 31.3.2 1456 Dionysius of Halicarnassus
15.94.3 791 32.1.1 1059 115, 445, 549, 969, 1007,
16.3.1 1827 32.6.3 2210 1344, 1363, 1535, 1633,
16.17.4 3710 32.6.4 1253 1673, 2876, 2973, 3281,
16.20.1 1827 32.9a.1 512 3543, 3673, 3696
16.31 897 32.18.1 2805
16.54 897 32.26.2 1985, 2261 Antiquitates romanae
16.65.5 1535 33.1 342 1.4.2 866
16.81.3 1827 33.4.1 512 1.23.1 2805
16.91.4 2469 33.4.2 1059 1.27 849
16.92.2 2815 33.5.6 866 1.34.4 1266
17.8.7 323 33.14 1144 1.37.2 3555
17.1.4 963 33.14.3 512 1.46.4 1215
17.11.4 1099 33.14.4 2143 1.56.4 2805
17.11.4-5 926 33.15.1 2143 1.79.7 2805
17.34.4 1535 33.2.1 1775 1.87.2 900
17.35.6 223 34/35.2.27-30 352 1.88.3 819
17.41.7 2210 34/35.2.17 353 2.7.2 1285
17.43.6 376, p.86 n.e 34/35.2.1-3 358 2.8 1332
17.48.3 1099 34/35.2.19 780 2.9.1 1285
17.48.7 2839 34/35.2.30 375 2.9.2 2570
17.50.3 1653 34/35.2.47 973 2.10.1 1041
17.50.4 1653 34/35.3.1 1456 2.19.2 1420
17.52.6 2433 34/35.29.1 2143 2.23.4 819
17.59.4 1535 36.4.3 3187 2.29.1 2297
17.63.2 1535 36.7.4 353 2.30.4 1215
17.100.5 1700 36.16.1 223 2.31.3 2805
17.104.7 1968 37.2.13 1059 2.34.2 1215
17.106.6 2369 37.5.2 893 2.35.3 3550
17.107.6 376, p.87 n.e 37.10.1 618 2.35.6 1215
18.39.4 1059 37.11.1 963 2.36.3 1254
18.47.3 3826 38/39.8.1 543, 1885 2.45.5 223
18.66.5 3151 38/9.19.1 2805 2.50.6 1215
18.67.1 822 40.3.4 1061 2.54.4 1535
18.70.3 1700 40.7.2 2278 2.63.2 260
19.1.8 512 43.6 926 2.63.3 3494
19.52.6 688 107.6 926 2.73.2 1266
19.59.6 688 3.2.2 401
19.60.2 688 Diogenes Laertius 3.6.4 3494
19.66.6 1827 Vitae philosophorum 3.7.4 2805
19.71.2 512 1.6 376, 926, 1061, p.87 n.e 3.8.2 543
19.81.2 2210 1.98 1653 3.12.3 3350
19.95.7 1827 2.12 804 3.14.2 2815
19.96.4 474 2.16 1010 3.20.3 1114
19.102.3 688 2.106 512 3.21.2 1326
20.8.4 3555 3.80 866 3.23.11 1254
20.29.7 822 3.91 866 3.23.20 2805
20.34.3 1112 4.19 777 3.34.4 1456
20.54.7 3826 6.23 787 3.35.6 2151
20.48 3284 6.76 946 3.42.1 3657
20.48.1 3323 7.92 866 3.61.2 2297
20.48.2-3 3322 7.93 1322 3.71.2 1641
20.65.2 822 7.102 866 3.73.4 2768, 3826
index of ancient texts 489

4.8.1 1041 8.17.6 3187 20.9.1-2 304

4.11.5 1215 8.25.1 2151
4.12.1 46, 1114 8.25.3 688 Ars rhetorica
4.16 387 8.28.3 866, p.89 n.i 8.7 1300
4.25.4 1215 8.39.2 1248
4.26.1 1041 8.53.3 2297 De compositione verborum
4.26.2 2815 8.54.5 1456 1 140
4.32.1 866 8.56.1 2805 2 730
4.36.2 1266 8.61.3 1456 5.55 1253
4.44.3 2570 8.62.3 866, p.89 n.i 18.73 3350
4.46.4 2261 8.65.2-3 1535 25 3025
4.50.2 1490 8.65.5 900 26.150 1885
4.50.4 1217 8.72.3 2989
4.51.4 3187 8.78.5 897 De Demosthene
4.62.1 2759 8.84.1 469 2.29 247
4.70.2 2746 8.86.5 1535 12 822
4.73.2 512 9.2 1332 22 1248
4.74.1 2504 9.2.4 469 22 2917
4.77.1 1041 9.9.1 3350
5.2.1 2297 9.11.4 900 De Dinarcho
5.9.1 223 9.21.2 2151 54.54 688
5.9.2 631 9.26.9 1456
5.15.3 2331 9.38.2 2805 De Isaeo
5.19.3 2297 9.44.8 p.89 n.i 4 1642, 3621
5.26.5 1099 9.48.3 900
5.34.4 2759 9.50.2 469 De Isocrate
5.42.2 3187 9.53.4 469 7 866
5.46.4 900, 926, p.87 n.e 9.56.4 469
5.51.3 2768 9.57.5 1260 De Lysia
5.55.3 57 9.61.2 1535 27 1827
5.59.1 57 9.64.1 469
5.75.2 2297 9.70.1 469 De Thucydide
5.77.6 2768 10.6.4 512 6-7 1642
6.6.3 2469 10.8.1 2168 41 1456
6.7.3 2768 10.10.1 1059
6.10.1 2805 10.10.2 2815 Epistula ad Pompeium Geminum
6.12.2 900 10.14 499 3.9 3540
6.12.5 900 10.16.4 28
6.21.1 2172 10.17.1 401 Dionysius Thrax
6.36.2 543 10.19.1 768 Ars grammatica
6.38.1 2261 10.24.2 2297 1.1.86 1631
6.41.3 1535 10.41.4 900
6.48.3 1253 10.44 790 Dioscurides Pedianus
6.50.1 3771 10.46.8 1928 De materia medica
6.51.3 3037 10.48 499 775
6.54.1 768 10.55.4 1266 1.69.4 3234
6.79.1 3771 10.57.5 1928 1.78.2 850
6.82.2 512 10.59.5 1198, 2297 4.91.1 850
6.82.3 3187 11.5.3 2261 5.126.3 850
6.84.4 3520 11.8.2 3187
7.19.2 2989 11.14.3 819 Euporista vel De simplicibus medicinis
7.25.2 2261 11.25.4 1642 1.133.1 850
7.28.3 2989 11.35.5 512 2.36.4 850
7.31.2 2261 11.42.4 1157 2.118.2 850
7.35.5 900 11.59.3 2090 2.119.4 850
7.46.5 1665 12.5.2 2331
7.48.3 2261 12.10.2 2805 Dorotheus
7.50.2 1285 12.13.4 3187 Fragmenta
7.55.3 1570 13.5.3 866 343 757
7.56.3 1285 13.8.2 469
7.68.1 1631 13.9.2 3507 Fragmenta Graeca
8.2.2 866, 2220, p.89 n.i 14.2.2 340, 3706 390 833
8.6.1 866 14.3.2 2261
8.8.1 p.89 n.i 14.9.4 469 Empedocles
8.9.3 1254 14.10.3 3238 Fragmenta
8.14.2 1456 16.6.2 1099 115.20 945
490 index of ancient texts

Ephorus Fragmenta Oenei 1185 970

966 40.5 631 1676 2204

Epitome de Caesaribus Hecuba Rhesus

1.6 2447 253 2099 382 1700
1230 866 483 2099
Epictetus (see also “Arrian, Disserta- 742-43 2099
tiones” above) Helena 977 1420
135, 286, 1153, 1211 162 866
166 1420 Supplices.
Epicurus 1691 1083 11 1985
Epistularum fragmenta 347 56
92 1771 Heraclidae 1179 2099
72a 1059 176 2099
749-50 912 Troiades
Epiphanius 469 2469
De mensuris et ponderibus Hercules 792-93 2099
15 2826 470 849 964 528
513 108 1178 3555 1262 2692
1298 970
Panarion Eustathius
3.123 1101 Hippolytus Commentarius in evangelium secundum
29.7.7-8 2826 422 2261 Joannem
30.2.7 2826 598 2099 3.137 3304
878 443 3.915 3304
Euhemerus 1232 2331
953 1309 866 Galen
135, 461, 618, 649, 651,
Euphorion Ion 932, 1363, 3281, 3543,
Fragmenta 335 377 3619
1063 342-43 2099
1248 2099 De compositione medicamentorum se-
Eupolis cundum locos libri
Fragmenta Iphigenia aulidemsis 12.521 1771
339 932 305 2204 12.830 910
476 649
Euripides 617 2728 De consuetudinibus
651 114.14 [Dietz] 936
Iphigenia taurica
Alcestis 213 3771 De locis affectis libri
896 1083 896 1083 8.369 838
1148 866 978 1180 371 838
1298 758 401 838
Andromache 440 838
281 3530 Medea
438 2099 169 3771 De placitis Hippocratis et Platonis
1055 443 289 2099 5.5.3 745
1144 3813 693 2099 5.5.16 745
1287 1083 724 377 8.3.16 943
1143 1215
Bacchae 1418 1083 De simplicium medicamentorum tem-
735 546 peramentis ac facultatibus libri
739 546 Orestes 11.811.4 850
786 2331 214 3771 12.41.13 850
971 1985 390 173 12.68.7 850
1104 546 1335 3632 12.207.2 850
1127 546 1455-56 2099
1135 546 1486 443 De usu partium
1220 546 1667 1641 3.719 2181
1391 1083
Phaethon In Hippocratis librum vi epidemiarum
Electra 225 804 commentarii vi
1226 1985 17a.562 889
Phoenissae 17a.558.8 838
Fragmenta Hypsipyles 225 2570 17a.705.11 838
61+82 528 480 2099 17b 830
index of ancient texts 491

198 830 2.30 1215 8.40-47 2239

2.33 2371 8.42 2239
In Hippocratis prorrheticum 2.104.4 2994 8.50-54 2237
16.710.10 838 2.120 631 8.50-96 2245
16.719.3 838 2.121 2258 8.55-63 2239
2.141 1885 8.60 1215, 2530
Herodian 2.151.2 2994 8.68 589
1325 2.158 2421 8.75 3312
2.20.2 3056 2.159.2 2839 8.92 279
3.8.5 749, 758 2.170 1233 8.97 3312
4.5.6 1565 2.171 1063 8.100 2226, 3312
8.7.2 778 3.3 1095 8.106 1215
3.5.2 2839 8.107-17 2240
Ab excessu divi Marci 3.25 889, 2420 8.109.3 811
6.4.1 3632 3.35 1024 8.110-17 2240
3.45 1215 8.111 56
De prosodia catholica 3.80 1570 8.118 2240, 2258
3.1.15.5 686 3.100 889 8.124 2239
3.1.15.16 686 3.134 590 8.132 2371
4.8 2279, 2371 8.142 2226
Partitiones 4.36 2417 8.143 2238
67 3678 4.42 2421 8.144 2226
4.42-43 2371 9.46 2226
Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας 4.64 3151 9.60 2226
3.2.441 1928 4.96 2371 9.64 2249
4.121 1215 9.107 901
Heron 4.147-48 2408
Dioptra 4.150-67 2408 Hesiod
37 2518 4.152 2371 Opera et dies
4.172 2413 156-78 951
Heliodorus 4.181 700, 2371 159-60 963
Aethiopica 4.185 2371 169-170 955, 962
7.24.2 543 4.192 3691 339 804
8.3.8 543 4.196 700 804 2785
5.14 1215
Heraclitus 5.49 2226 Theogonia
Allegoriae (Questiones homericae) 5.54.2 1201 133 953
22.4 945 5.70 2903 265 953
5.81 193 282 953
Herodas 5.92f 1177 294 953
Mimiambi 5.124 3312 378-80 956
5.12 3826 6.9.3 811 979 2371
6.19 1215 984-85 1201
Herodotus 6.91.2 3790
188, 289, 698, 939, 1007, 6.114.1 3790 Hierocles
1074, 2759, 2876, 2973, 6.138 1215 Fragmenta ethica
3312, 3673 7.18.13 2805 pg. 56 ln. 5 989
1.12 3658 7.22-24 2242
1.32.70 513 7.24 2242 Hipparchus
1.35 1623 7.33-36 2242 Fragmenta geographica
1.65 804 7.35 2242 63.9 660
1.117 1502 7.37 2242
1.119.1 2258 7.101-104 2241 Hippias
1.180 2421 7.102.2-3 2226 Fragmenta
1.185.7 2994 7.103 2241 1.42 1215
1.203 2371, 2418 7.117 2242 1.51 1215
1.137 1456 7.151 1201
1.164 1215 7.168 2226 Hippocrates
1.166 1215 7.122 2242 886, 1110
1.176 1215 7.224 2248
1.181 685 7.235 2226 De affectionibus interioribus
1.183 685 8.4 3312 39.26 941
2.11 2421 8.22 2226
2.13.9 3035 8.33 2692 De articulis
2.15.2 3035 8.36 1215 47 3238
2.15.11 3035 8.40-41 2237
492 index of ancient texts

De diaeta 6.232 302 Ad Nicoclem

49 889 8.371 223 2 866
9.443 157, 1935 48-9 966
De diaeta in morbis acutis 11.118 302 56 1266
7.50 3619 11.484 302
18.8 775 11.569-71 2887 Ad Timotheum
12.441 2692 45c 3093
De humoribus 14.288 945
9 3147 14.311 953 Antidosis
14.317 970 15 2165
De morbis popularibus 16.151 953 18 2165
5.1.95 461 16.509 2461 70 1160
7.1.121 461 17.363 3037 121 57
17.460 302 124 1735
De mulierum affectibus i-iii 17.497 3037 159 2358
75.13 775 17.579 302 161 688
75.17 775 18.37 2133 293 1266
190 775 18.402 953
18.506 302 Archidamus
De prisca medicina 19.242 157 7 1637
10 461 21.247 302 30 893
22 3238 23.205-7 1201 59 879
24.8 2864 65 2358
De semine 24.163-5 2039 97 2261
51 1099 24.320 302
57 2705 24.465 223 Areopagiticus
24.478 223 6 688
Epidemiae 20 2261
2.1.11 246 Odyssey 69 2358
2.361 2133 70 503
Epistulae 3.111-12 1201
17.186 631 4.185-202 1201 Busiris
19 461 6.43-6 955 14 1571
6.226 775
Hippocratic corpus 8.183 2864 De bigis
849, 3756 11.522 1201 13 3114
11.576ff 970 45 1456
De anatome 11.576-600 967
1 1180 12.322 1016 De pace
16.290 3826 33 866
Hippolytus 18.149 3037 34 866
Contra haeresin Noeti 19.9 3826 63 866
9.18 751 20.301 1092 100 3114
9.18.26-29 p.88 21.205-28 642 102 1266
24.532 3037 124 3657
Historia Alexandri Magni Recensio α
1.32.2 3150 Hymnus Homericus ad Cererem Evagoras
35 912 14 1827
Homer 280 912
289, 953, 2973 Helenae encomium
Hyperides 2.1 2165
Iliad In Demosthenem
1.1 433, 2806 3.7 1672 In Callimachum
1.9 2807 43 2205
1.43 3185 Isaeus
1.423-24 1201 1325 In Lochitem
2.106 302 2 2099
2.238 2461 Pro Euphileto
2.341 399 2 1564 Orationes et epistolae
2.514 597 4.148 465
2.876-77 2315 Isocrates
3.73 1619 2876 Panathenaicus
4.31 2805 124 866
4.78 302 Ad fi lios Jasonis 141 1735
5.81 302 10 3093 163 866
5.139 2461 169 2805
index of ancient texts 493

183 866 Amores Hercules

204 866 44 792 3 3312
219 866
Anacharsis Hermotimus
Panegyricus 1 1665 1 3756
2.194 750 22 1008 9-19 1934
39 893 21 883
50.3 323 Calumniae non temere credendum 29 883
138 688 10 499 33 883
23 1930 47 883
Philippus
10 56 Cataplus Icaromenippus
18.4 28 12 964 22 3719
69 1569
Charon Juppiter tragoedus
Plataicus 21 3312 17 3756
47 1420
Cum Saturninus et Aurelianus acti essent Macrobii
Trapeziticus in exsilium 3-4 921
46 1827 35 3312 5 921, 922
6 921, 922
Julian De domo 8 921
Εἰς τὸν βασιλέα Ἥλιον πρὸς 13 946 11-13 921
Σαλούστιον 15-16 921
1.9 912 De luctu 17 560
8 964 18-19 921
Epistulae 22 921
14 678 De mercede conductis potentium famil- 23 921
iaribus 24 1095
Epistula ad Athenienses 5 2165 27 921
11.19 20 9 2504
23 2504 Menippus
Misopogon 24 461 4 883
351a 792 31 3719 12 964
14 970
Julius Pollux De morte Peregrini 15 963
Onomasticon 13 926, p.86 n.e
1.11 1180 13.12 376 Navigium
1.26 2035 23 p.86 n.e 27 499
1.37 864 23.2 376 29 779
1.171 2628 23.6 376 39 499
3.70 2035 33 p.86 n.e
3.155 932 33.6 376 Nigrinus
8.97 34 40.5 12 15 2261
30 3706
Libanius De saltatione
Declamationes 77 932 Phalaris
17.1.83 2694 1.1 499
De Syria dea
Orationes 18 631 Podagra
58 792 43 631 55 3234
114 932
Longinus Dialogi deorum 287 932
De sublimitate 18.2 1641
32.5 975 Prometheus es in verbis
Dialogi mortuorum 1 2504
Lucian 12.5 1641
260, 286, 1363, 3281 20.9 1930 Pseudologista
16 461
Abdicatus Eunuchus
5 499 2 812 Revivescentes sive piscator
8 3756 3 2468
Alexander
1641 Fugitivi Soloecista
25 193 8 685 7 2504
45 2181
494 index of ancient texts

Timon 9.3.1 376, 926, p.87 n.e Onasander

43 3151 10.11.1 3719 Strategicus
12.34.1 376, 926, p.87 n.e 286, 3169
Toxaris vel amicitia 6 389, 467
6 3336 Megasthenes 10.3.14 660
20 3336 286 10.8 389
21 3336 19.1 469
Memnon 20 3236
Verae historiae Fragmenta 27 457
1.8 3719 18 2220 29.2 469
1.34 1095 21 3447 30 457
2.5 461 31 2220 32 467
2.26 965 36 2220 33 284
59 3494 33.5 1464
Vitarum auctio 34.4 437
7 2504 Menander 34.35 437
Aspis 34.38 437
Zeuxis 423 1985 41.1 2705
3 1095 42.12-13 2461
Fragmenta
Lycophron 801 758 Oppian
Alexandra Halieutica
1091 3771 Samia 2.316 543
1179 1063, 1233 209 2331
1259 1063, 1233 Oracula Sibyllina
Sententiae e codicibus Byzantinis 2.125 1699
Lycurgus 1.126 2469
Oratio in Leocratem Oribasius
31 893 Musonius Rufus Collectiones medicae
3.68 791 2.58.7 2475
Lysias 2.58.32 2475
In Alcibiadem 1 Dissertationum a Lucio digestarum rel- 2.58.37 2475
2 2205 iquiae 10.17.2 910
10 926 58.28 2475
Pro Mantitheo 10 p.86 n.e
1 2165 10.8-9 376 Libri ad Eunapium
3.12.2 176
In Diogitonem Nicander
19 1827, 2165 Fragmenta Orphica
74.39 912 Testimonia
In Ergoclem 6.6 923
3 897 Theriaca
7 849 Pausanias
In Philocratem 100 849 Graeciae descriptio
14 1735 714 849 3254
934 849 1.35.7-8 2371
Orationes 1.42.3 1201
10.11 722 Nicolaus of Damascus 2.5.8 941
Fragmenta 2.11.7 1857
Περὶ τραύματος ἐκ προνοίας ὑπὲρ οὗ 5.68 1326 2.35.5 12
καὶ πρὸς ὃν <ἄδηλον> 101.704 3008 4.21.11 941
20 1456 101.934 1059 4.31.9 1857
4.32.4 685
Manetho Numenius 5.4.5 2465
Fragmenta 618 5.20.1 2465
42 1215 5.27.11 941
Nymphis 6.23.1 2159
Marcus Aurelius Fragmenta 7.13.8 941
Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν (Meditations) 11 1631 7.18.12 1857
1.1-17 836 8.13.1 686
3.4.1 988 Oenomaus 8.40.2 941
4.3.4 3719 Fragmenta 8.40.5 941
4.50.1 376, 926, p.87 n.e 6.63 323 8.44.8 941
5.33.1 3719 8.51.8 941
7.70.1 3719 9.33.1 941
8.24.1 988 10.2.4 941
index of ancient texts 495

10.4.6 2279 Plato 640d 780

10.22.4 941 115, 651, 753, 863, 923, 642e 2099
10.23.12 941 939, 953, 1007, 1325, 649b 2261
10.31.7 1201 2061, 2346, 3281 665a 820
10.32.16 1857 674d 804
10.32.17 941 Apologia Socratis 671a 461
23c 2570 674d 804
Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων συναγωγή 27b 2187 691e 1660
Z.4 853 27c-e 2805 709a 2606
30c 2187 722b 56
Phalaridis Epistulae 31c-d 2805 735e 897
103.3 926, p.87 n.e 35d 56 737d 2197
745c 742
Pherecydes Cratylus 755d 780
Fragmenta 390e 173 758e 780
2.8 974 398c 963 760e 780
4.12 974 400c 947 764c 780
418e 503 765d 780
Philostratus 421d 1610 766b 780
De gymnastica 769e 1266
46 1665 Critias 772a 780
113b-121c 804 780d 3147
Heroicus 115b 804 797c 2606
963 801d 780
707 416 Crito 813c 780
53d 2625 816b 1757
Imagines 831a 1623
2.32.2 932 Epinomis 834a 2099
984c 945 847c 780
Vita Apollonii 848e 780
3.15 12 Euthydemus 863e 1153
5.22 852 288b 1642 864e 1623
5.36 3363 865e 2099
8.7 946 Euthyphro 869 1153
8.19 12 3b 2606 871e 722
34 945 4b 722 872e 2099
42 945 12e 866, p.89 n.i 874a 1610
end 945 16a 2606 906b 3771
929d 780
Philo of Byzantium (Mechanicus) Gorgias 934 1153
Belopoeica 483e 1642 951b 1266
78 2282 492b-c 866 951e 780
492d 1762 953b 2099
Parasceuastica et poliorcetica 507b p.89 n.i
95 215, 3693 517b 56 Menexenus
519a 866 78d 866
Phlegon 521a 1762
Fragmenta 525b-e 967, 972 Phaedo
2b.257f.40 469 61b-e 966
Hippias Maior 65a 947
Pindar 283d 3541 80d-81d 1010
951 291a 923 99c 2805

Nemeonikai Ion Phaedrus

4.35 946 532d 3525 60a 3632
10.65 1985 536a 3525 69b-c 866
70c 1012
Olympionikai Laches 71e-72a 1012
1.46-58 969 179a 536 103e 733
2.54-74 958 184b 2205 229b-c 966
232d 499
Pythionikai Leges 244e 2570
2.21-48 970 626a 193 276e 966
3.34 597 626b 1266
4.213 946 632c 866 Philebus
7 3657 634b 927 14 1735
496 index of ancient texts

39e 866, p.89 n.i 235a 1642 Agesilaus

49c 1212 235d 733 2248
241b 1642 2.1 3462
Politicus 6-15 2251
262e 733 Symposium 11.7 860, p.86 n.c
279d 849 184c 1316 18.3 1535
291c 1642 196D 866 19.6 1609
292a 1266 220d 804 21.3 739
294d 1610 30.3 777, 860, p.86 n.c
296b 56 Theaetetus
296e 1577 190e 812 Agis et Cleomenes
297e-299c 1577 193d 812 13.4 461
302a 1577 17.7 1322
303c 1642 Timaeus
304c-d 966 21e 3035 Alcibiades
304d 56 41d 1010 10.1 30
308a 1985 42d 461, 1010 14.4 3719
54a 1212 14.12 1609
Protagoras 63b 1212 30.10 28
311e-314e 71 69d 975 31.3 822
322d 722 84-87b 1660
323a-b 866 91d-e 1010 Alexander
329c 866 17.1 688
349b 866 Nicomachus 26.5 3719
Theologoumena arithmeticae 30.11 864
Respublica 22 3632 52.5 2254
341c-d 1577 71.4 2254
361d 879 Phrynichus
364a 866 3619 Antonius
371e 375 14.5 3151
372e 1660 Praeparatio sophistica 17.1 2297
373b 3525 107 864 39.6 469
377b-378d 966 60.4 3151
388e-392d 966 Pindar 79.6 3151
390b 745 944 84.4 48
395a 3525 87 699
395e 1420 Pythia
405c 932 4.98 803 Aratus
411d 56 17.6 688
424b 780 Plotinus 32.3 826
430d 866 Enneades 34.6 3678
433a 1008 2.9.18 376
471c 3114 4.2.2 820 Aristides
484d 893 4.7.3 820 618, 3520
488c-e 2499 6.1.17 1212 1.5 193
488d 56 6.9.9 820 5.2 739
492d 897 6.3 739
500d 866 Plutarch 19.7 469
514a-517c 20, 171 134, 135, 157, 188, 260, 21.4 12
514b 1833 299, 900, 939, 1007, 284-85 791
514a-518b 947 1114, 1325, 1363, 1673,
555a 1153 2184, 2198, 2461, 2705, Artaxerxes
557b 2261 3235, 3254, 3281, 3461, 21.5 688
565-69 1570 3543, 3696 27.1 897
565d-566a 1304
566e 2220 Fragmenta Brutus
567b 1762 36 2181 12.2 376, 759, 926, p.86 n.e
569c 528 18.9 1968
575b 1653 Lives 29.8 499
587c 1653 Aemilius Paullus 39.3 28
596a 733 18.9 822
606d 777 26.6 469 Caesar
34.8 2805 15 2344
Sophista 35.3 1420 15.5 2359
222e 975 16.1 28
234c 1642 18.4 879
index of ancient texts 497

22.2-3 2283 25.7 1188 18.1 860, p.86 n.c

27.6 48 19-20 981
49.7 3336 Demetrius 20.6 913
62.4 3540 30.4 688 21.1 739
41.8 688 22.3 739
Camillus 23.2 2465
6.3 843 Demosthenes 24.1 852
27.3 461 21 3322 29.5 860, p.86 n.c
33.6 461 21.2 2189 29.6 925
42.3 822 38.5 879 30.2 925
47.4 1309 30.4 3462
Cato Major 31.3 895
1-9 745, 758 Dion
2.1 808 7.3 499 Lysander
2.4 975 10.4 28 2248
2.3 746 14.3 1653 17.6 739
3.1-4 808 15.1 512 23.4 3525
3.3 739 38.5 2989 24.2 1634
3.6 746 26.2 795
4.2 746 Eumenes 27 1827
4.3 739 8.1 499
6 739 Marcellus
10.8 739 Fabius Maximus 2.2.2 64
11.3 746 4.3 2297 3.4 2504
16.4 37 10.7 739 17.5 2805
16.5 30 17.5 2805 20.1 469
44.5 822 17.7 48 23.4 2289
18.2 1827
Cato Minor 22.4 822 Marcius Coriolanus
5.4 739 10.8 739
17.144.1 739 Galba 17.4 461
35.7 1322 6.2 1968 18.4 826
53.3 688 13 1653 36.4 223
16.3 499
Cicero 18.3 1634 Marius
1.6 790 27.4 188 11.7 688
7.6 2794 28.3 897 17.2 739
8.1 2529 19.6 469
16.3 1406 Lucullus 21.8 2805
16.6 2297 2.5 555 29.3 56
17.2 790 6.2 739 42.1 688
17.5 1641 7.26 2805 45.9 688
29.1 375 10.1 64
49:2 826 16.6 777 Nicias
28 2657 4.1 1631
Cimon 32.3 461 4.6 631
12.5 3693 31.8 469 13.11 48
37.1 790 19.10 688
Comparatio Agidis et Cleomenis cum 41.5 813
Tiberio et Gaio Graccho Numa
59.2 1827 Lycurgus 4.2 739
2248 4.3 2805
Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 1.1 2465 5.3 2805
1.2 2504 2.2 860 8.1 1660
2.2 p.86 n.c 8.3 739
Comparatio Demetrii et Antonii 4.2 3462 8.5 739
6.3 992 5.3 895, 925 10.6 826
5.6 1660 12.5 2518
Comparatio Lycurgi et Numae 7.3 3462 13.6-7 777
3.6 3462 8.1-2 759
8.4 770 Pelopidas
Comparatio Lysandri et Sullae 10.1-2 830 6.2 1653
4.2 1322 11.3 852 13.7 688
15.9 758 26.4 1653
Crassus 16.5 3462 28.9 512
22.3 343 16.5-6 860, p.86 n.c 34.3 499
498 index of ancient texts

Pericles Theseus 1093d 946

5.1 791 24.1 3057
5.3 739 24.2 2989 Ad principem ineruditum
7.6 739 24.3 56 779d 555
9.1 688
24.5 739 Tiberius et Gaius Gracchus An seni respublica gerenda sit
29.1 3719 23.9 790 788a-b 739
30 193 23.9 992 789f 739
34.4 2805 794a-c 739
36.8 1827 Timoleon 797c 3678
14.4 688
Philopoemen 15.6 3151 An vitiositas ad infelicitatem suffi ciat
6.13 469 19.3 56 499c 3706
15.9 739 27.8 469
16.9 2694 An virtus doceri posit
17.3-4 1577, 2499 Titus Flamininus 439f 792
21.2 2768 10.6 461
11.7 728 Apophthegmata laconica
Phocion 12 134 981
33.9 822 16.6 779 208c 860, p.86
209e 893
Pompeius Moralia 209f 852
1.3 739 2e 375 210a 743, 852, 860, 926,
21.3 739 5a 3147 p.86
26 2233 b 28 210f 376, 926
42.5 739 59c 661 212c 832
45.2 2228 96b 499 212f 739, 1928
45.4 342, 2228 97c 2354 214e 873
53.2 739 110e 1420 215e 739
112b 1420 216c 376, 926
Publicola 114c-d 1420 219e 376, 926
1.3 688 129c 1771 220a 739
9.9 739 161c 2805 225d 928
16.8 3336 164e-171 1096 225f 852
19.2 3336 169c 1096 226a-b 919
176d 499 226b-c 770
Pyrrhus 198d-f 745 226e 2989
11.4 3678 243d 2504 226f 852
30.6 1535 265e 2504 227a 896
314f 512 227b 852
Romulus 315d 512 227e 375
13.7 739 319c-d 2354 228b 758
16.1 56 324b 2354 229c 1762
28.3 2805 324d 2354 232f 913
331a 1335 236d 182, 2805
Sertorius 379e 1096 236f 878
5.7 1653 403c 512 237a 860, p.86
14:3 1653 416a 3147 237b 777, 793
453c 28 238e 812, 878
Solon 501d 1771 238f 794
1.6 739 545e 743 239c 879
12.1 739 555e 743 239f 925
15.6 739 560d 1018 240b 1762
16.2 56 564b 461
23.2 2504 575d 28
582b 2805 Bruta animalia ratione uti
Sulla 588c 2805 990d 1153
13.1 512 597e 469
13.4 739 609b 48 Consolatio ad Apollonium
14.3 1968 656f 461 116a 2759
678c 461 116c 1827
Themistocles 697b 1099 117f 3826
3.3 1300 714d 461 119b 822
21.2 56 772b 2805 193b 1827
873b 469
999e 2805
index of ancient texts 499

De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute De sollertia animalium 824a 1660

343a 2662 975b 964 824e 1749
824e-f p.267 n.i
De cohibenda ira De Stoicorum repugnantiis 848b 3524
745 1044b-d 762
1053a 945 Quaestiones convivales
De cupidtate divitiarum 623b 3525
525b 1153 De superstitione 627e 775
166f-167a 973 696d 773
De curiositate 170f 973 713a 3151
520b 2691 171e 883 731c 2282
733b 2282
De defectu oraculorum De virtute et vitio 738d 3399
412d 3756 100d 852
415b 963 Quomodo adulator ab amico internosca-
De virtute morali tur
De esu carnium ii 447f 3756 51c 1762
997e 2621 59c-d 1762
De vitando aere alieno 66d-e 1762
De facie in orbe Iunae 831e 3336 68d 1930
928c 945 74e 3057
Mulierum virtutes
De fortuna Romanorum 253f 193 Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat
2259 profectus
321c 1660 Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epi- 78b 3151
curum 84a 759
De fraterno amore 1095f 193 1044a 759
479c 3530 11.3d 3719
Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata
De garrulitate Praecepta gerendae rei publicae 981
511c 2628 1251 193a 777
2643 198d-f 758
De gloria Atheniensium 798f 1749 204a 1634
345e 3525 799a-c 1749 365d 777
348e 3525 799b-801c 3414
800d-e 3818 Vitae decem oratorum
De Herodoti malignitate 801a-804c 3733 840a 2642
855b 1631 801c 2499 848b 2642
867b 3312 801c-804c 2587
887e 3312 801d 739 Polyaenus
803a 739, 2499 1325, 2705, 3169
De invidia et odio 805c 2183
499 806d 790 Excerpta Polyaeni
807b 2499 40.3 1535
De liberis educandis 808b 2183
1b 1762 811b-c 739 Strategemata
5b 299 812c 2499 4.6.18 342
13a 975 813d-16a p.267 n.i 4.7.4 3336
13b 3525 813f 3524 4.9.3 342
814b-c 2127 5.4.36 926
De Iside et Osiride 814c-e 134 5.14.1 376
360a 966 814c-815f 1483 5.19.1 342
380 1634 814e-816a 134 6.7.2 512
814f-815e 2229 7.17.1 376
De Pythiae oracults 815b 2627, 3818 8.8.1 1095
407c 1641 815c-e 2627, 3337, 3413
816a-824d 180, p.266 n.d Polybius
De tranquillitate animi 817a 3462, 2183 188, 193, 289, 327, 360,
745 818e-f 2462 445, 549, 859, 900, 939,
474 485 819a p.267 n.i 983, 1003, 1059, 1074,
476a 3336 820c 739 1211, 1310, 1409, 1453,
822b 739 1491, 1535, 1938, 2061,
De tuenda sanitate praecepta 823b 873 2346, 2532, 2649, 2752,
126e 182 823e 739 2759, 2876, 2973, 3018,
135b 3530 823f 1749 3169, 3673
823-24 1483, 1501 1.1.2 2259
500 index of ancient texts

1.1.6 2892 4.1-3 2259 10.15.4-6 437

1.4.1 2354 4.9.10 1490 10.15.4-16.9 3047
1.4.5 2354 4.20.5 1642 10.16.1-4 3506
1.7.8 2892 4.26.4 2197 10.17.6 1215
1.16.4 2210 4.31.4 1762, 2261 10.17.9 28
1.19.3 2415 4.32.8 1215 10.17.12-15 662
1.20.13 2310 4.53.3 1456 10.17.14 28
1.25.7 2310 4.58.1 2892 10.17.15 1041
1.32.8 1985 4.69.7 3187 10.31.3 3382
1.39.2-3 2412 4.71.11 3187 10.31.8 3236
1.42.11 2210 5.11.5 1341 10.32.6 84
1.47.1 2642 5.29.9 1633 10.32.6-33.6 84
1.48.8 2692 5.40.6 1423 10.34.3 1215
1.53.4 1059 5.54.2 1215 10.34.10 1215
1.53.7 2210 4.62.4 1041 10.35.1 1215
1.65.2 3696 4.71.13 1215 10.37.10 2146
1.66.8 1215 4.81.13 528 10.38.2 757, p.85 n.b
1.68.3 1215 5.9.1 543 10.40.11 1423
1.69.6 1098 5.11.3 543 10.46.2 3093
1.70.3-7 3502 5.14.3 543 11.5.8 2472
1.70.5 1672 5.15.5 822 11.6.9 2010
1.71.5 3696 5.37.2 28 11.12.2 28
1.71.7 3696 5.57.2 164 11.13.1-7 3502
1.74 1215 5.57.7 2210 11.14.1 1535
1.78.1 2415 5.60.10 2210 11.21.1 2415
1.81.9 776 5.78.1 1215 11.28.7 1215
1.82.1 1672 5.93.4 1041 11.29.6 2297
2.4-12 2325 5.93.8 730 11.32.5-7 2173
2.9.5 1535 5.111.6 1215 12.3.2 2282
2.18.4 3696 6.1.4 828 12.6b.8 1215
2.20-39 29 6.4.8 1570 12.12b.1 1631
2.35.2 1672 6.7.8 499 12.25a.4-5 p.265
2.44.3 1253 6.9.5 1762 12.25h.5 1215
2.47.4 1672 6.11 1285 12.25i-26b p.265
2.49.7 2354 6.23.5 3234 12.26.2 2465
2.50.4 28 6.25.1 1474 13.3.1-4 2657
2.56.7 1215 6.44.4 2499 13.4.4 1672
2.58.10 543, 1215 6.44.4-6 3337 14.8.11 1085
2.59.1 1985 6.44.6 2499, 3151 15.1.8 1456
2.80-97 29 6.46.9 3696 15.6.8 2472
3 1660 6.53.8 2297 15.10-16 3805
3.3.2 688 6.54.2 928 15.11.5 1215
3.6-9 1828 6.54.3-4 1041 15.24.4-5 2183
3.17.7 28 6.56.3 776 15.29.14 1253
3.19.9 988 6.56.7-12 973 15.30.1 2606
3.21.1 3653 7.1.3 2146 15.30.3 822
3.21.6 3653 7.9.8 28 15.34.2 2354
3.23.2 2310 7.11.6 28 16.1.2 1341
3.26.1-7 2789 8.4.6 3234 16.3.14 822, 3336
3.33.1 2415 8.5.3 2010 16.8.10 2010
3.44.12 28 8.9.4 2892 16.11.5 3234
3.45.1 2415 8.10.11 2254 16.20.2 3350
3.49.7 3035 8.11.7 2183 16.21.7 988
3.51.6 1059 8.36.3 1215 16.23.5 2892
3.51.9 822 9.1 499 16.25.6 1215
3.53.5 2210 9.23.4 688 16.29.6 2418
3.60.4 2529 9.23.22 512 16.30-34 2492
3.65.1 2415 9.26.6 688 16.31.5 1215
3.68.1 2415 9.30.8 688 16.32.1 1672
3.74.1 1059 9.39.1 1672 16.32.4 1215
3.76.13 28 9.39.3 1215 16.33.4 2010
3.85.8 2210 9.41.1 3236 18.2.2 1423
3.109.7 1215 9.44.1 28 18.4.2 3350
3.115.4 1535 10.2.5 2354 18.11.8-9 3350
3.116.5 2415 10.14.4 1059, 2010 18.14.9 1762, 2261
index of ancient texts 501

18.23.4 3187 38 2403 Ps-Plato

18.26.5 3187 38.1.9 2183 Alcibiades major
18.26.12 3187 38.3.12 2297 2.142a 1404
18.28-32 3268 38.6.4 3147
18.32.10 3268 38.7-8 2406 Pythagoras
18.55.1 2 962 38.12.4 822 Carmen aureum
20.2-3 527 38.15.2 1041 7 2205
21.3.2 28 39.8.2 2354
20.9.9 3653 43.2.7 685 Rhetorica Anonyma
20.10.14-15 3350 Progymnasmata
21.22.3 28 Porphyry 1.607 323
21.32c.1-3 2183 818
21.32c.4 1653 Scylax
21.34.1 512 De abstinentia Periplus Scylacis
21.34.12 1672 2.26 1061 104 1195
21.43.13 2310 4.3.1-5.2 p.93 n.l
21.46.2 2146 4.11.3-13.10 p.93 n.l Seven Sages [Septem Sapientes]
22.5.2 28 4.13 932, 978 Sententiae [Mullach]
22.9.4 28 p. 216 l. 45 2652
22.12.2-3 1762 Peri agalmatōn
22.13.2 182 4.3 945 Sextus Empiricus
22.18.6-11 1828, 2098 618
23.10.2 2472 Posidonius
23.10.16 1341, 2472 549, 953 Adversus mathematicos
24.3.1 2143 164 812
24.8-10 3363 Fragmenta 187 812
24.9.5 3363 47a 401 258 812
24.10.9 2146 99 1215 365 812
24.11.6-8 2229 136c 1215
24.11.7 3653 138 1215 Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes
24.11-13 3363, 3413 169.98 376 2.6 812
24.12.2 2183 271c 945 2.118 812
24.13.1-8 2229 289.16 1099
25.3.7 p.85 n.b Sophocles
25.37.7 757 Fragmenta [Jacoby] 301
27.5.4 28 2a.87.F 70 264
27.16.2 2146 2a.87F .43 469 Ajax
28.6.5-6 1041 503 2570
29.8.10 2962 Posidonius in Athenaeus
29.9.12 2962 12.542b 2220 Antigone
29.11.2 461 28 2133
29.15.2 1098 Ps-Aeschines 96 1985
29.19.2 2472 Epistulae 235-36 2099
29.22.2 2354 3.3 499
29.27.1-6 2448
30.2.4 164 Ps-Andocides Electra
30.3.1 28 In Alcibiadem 288 2204
30.3.2 1672 16.5 389-90 2099
30.11.5 3696 464 866
30.13.2-11 3363 Ps-Galen 1122 1885
30.17.1 3653 618
30.31.16 1762 Fragmenta
31.3.2 28 Ps-Hermogenes 179 2331
31.6.4 1904 Περὶ μεθόδου δεινότητος
31.8.7 28 36.8-22 1244 Oedipus coloneus
31.23-30 2306 465 377
32.8.4 2354 Ps-Longinus 990 2204
32.15.8 1341 De sublimitate 1097 1641
33.10.6 1672 10.7.5 660 1340 485
34.4.5 957 43.4.1 660
34.9.8 2361 Oedipus tyrannus
34.14.4 3502 Ps-Lysias 15-30 2804
36.1.1-7 p.265 Epitaph. 96 2802
36.3-8 2406 14 1637 97 2804
36.5.2-3 2227
502 index of ancient texts

Philoctetes 3.2.7 2369 16.2.40 264

85 866 3.2.9 853, 908 16.2.46 669, 673
87-88 2099 3.2.11 2369 16.3.1 2430
382 2204 3.2.12 3812 16.4.2 2430
674 485 3.3.3 2366, 2367, 2368, 2369 16.4.7 408
3.3.7 2364, 2366 16.4.9 2794
Trachiniae 3.4.16 775 16.4.24 2431
239 3771 3.4.17-18 2364, 2366 16.75.8 1205
726 377 3.4.20 2360, 2366 17.1.4 2420
783 3632 3.5.3-5 2279 17.1.5-7 2442
799 932 3.5.5 2371 17.1.6 2450
830 2570 3.5.5-6 2371 17.1.8 762, 2443
1219 597 3.5.7 2369 17.1.13 560, 2431, 2445, 2450
3.5.7-10 2279 17.1.21 2451
Soranus 3.5.8 2369 17.1.42 1201
3619 3.5.9 1708 17.1.46 1201
4.1.1 2342 17.1.54 883
Gynaeciorum 4.4.2 401, 2364 17.2.1 2278
1.29 246 4.5.4 776 17.2.1-3 2420
1.34 989 4.6.7 3540 17.3 700
1.46.3 3678 5.2.2 2297 17.3.1 2417
2.20.1 2475 5.2.9 2805 17.3.2 2414
2.24.2 2475 17.3.4 2414
5.4.6-7 621
2.25.1 2475 17.3.7 699, 700, 775
5.4.7 621
2.46.4 2475 17.3.7-8 2414
5.4.11 3187
3.24.1 756, 991 17.3.9 2255
6.4.2 700
17.3.17 2412
7a.1.20 3650
Vita Hippocratis 17.3.20 408, 2322, 2412, 2413
7.2.3 778, 2006 17.3.21 2408
3 2691
7.3.3 749 17.3.23 2410, 2413, 2420
4 2691
7.3.6 957 17.3.24 2400, 2417
7.3.11 828, 1642 17.3.25 720
Stobaeus, Joannes
7.4.3 3540
Anthologium
7.5.4 2364 Suda
4.1.114 923
8 2443 686, 853, 909, 686
8.7 2429
Florilegium
13.17 2261 8.19 2429 Synesius
8.49 2429 Dion
Strabo of Amaseia 8.127 2429 3.2 686, 738, p.89
Geographica 10.3.23 260
135, 289, 900, 953, 1007, 11.1.6 401 Thales
1325, 1344, 1633, 1938, 11.2.2 2873 Testimonia
2061, 2759, 2876 11.2.10 2306 12 974
1.2.9 61 11.2.12 2304
1.2.10 957 11.2.18 2304 Themistius
1.2.15 685 11.3.3 461 Περὶ φιλανθρωπίας ἢ Κωνστάντιος
1.2.17 957 11.5.6 2304 229a 820
1.2.18 957 11.13.11 776
1.2.22 2504 12.537 694 Theocritus
1.2.23 3035 12.558 694 Idyllia
1.2.28 2417, 2420 13.1.35 1114 2.17 946
1.2.31 140 14.2.28 2874 2.22 946
1.2.35 957 14.4.2 408 2.27 946
1.2.37 957 14.5.5 1204, 2255 2.42 946
1.2.40 957 15.1.71 12 2.47 946
1.3.3 2254 15.3.2 1201 2.52 946
2.1.8 618 15.3.14 1673 2.63 946
2.1.13 2278 15.3.20 828 17.5 963
2.1.31 2873 15.44 720 20.11 901
2.2-3 953 16.1.6 685
2.5.5 2278 16.2.9 879 Theognis
2.5.28 2341, 2342 16.2.19 411 Elegiae
2.5.33 700, 2420 16.2.25-26 408 1.46 3494
2.5.34 2278 16.2.27-28 1195 1.145 866
2.5.39 408 16.2.34 264 1.701-12 968
3.2.4 2369 16.2.35 1061 1.1141 866
index of ancient texts 503

209 1619 1.57.5 3710 4.74.4 465

1.58.1 1633 4.76.5 1633
Theophilus 1.59.2 3710 4.80.3 1633
Ad Autolycum 1.69.5 157 4.87.1 157
1.10 34 1.72.1 1409 4.87.2 56
1.76 2183, p.268 4.88.2 3710
Theophrastus 1.78.3 2099 4.96.3 1085
135, 651, 939, 1110 1.80.1 1409 4.98.2 2197
1.81.6 3114 4.99.1 1249
Characteres 1.82.1 2518 4.108.3 1633
16.1 1096 1.82.4 1672 4.115.2 2692
16.4 963 1.97.1 41, 57, 1633 4.127.2 2705
16.14 901 1.102.3 41, 247, 1633 4.133.2 360
28.6 2261 1.104.2 3710 5.7.2 2662
1.115.2 41 5.10.7 1083
De causis plantarum 1.115.3 1633 5.14.3 1633, 3114
1.10.6 2504 1.115.5 3710 5.25.1 1098
1.13.3 1207 1.126 1828, 2903 5.31.3 3114
1.20.4 992 1.128.3 157 5.34.2 1633
2.1.3 2705 1.144.2 157 5.59.3 289
2.4.4 3555 1.146.1 193 5.84-113 2227
2.10.2 1099 2.1.1 193 5.85-113 617
2.12.6 1099 2.8.1 1409 5.86-111 2183, p.268
3.9.1 1099 2.11.1 1409 5.89 2183
4.12.13 689 2.20.2 1409 5.93.1 1985
5.11.2 1099 2.21.2 1409 5.99 2173
9.8.1 848 2.21.2-3 3114 6.18.6 1409, 1695
2.55.1 3114 6.34.4 2220
De eligendis magistratibus B 2.57.2 3114 6.34.6 1083
187 503 2.59.2 1249 6.34.8 1083
2.65.8 31 6.35.1 2099
De igne 2.65.9 157 6.89 1787
20 1099 2.73.2 3114 7.6.1 1833
2.73.3 1633 7.6.4 1833
De lapidibus 2.74.1 3114 7.11.3 1833
3.5 850 2.75.2 1833 7.22.2 1207
41.1 850 3.11.1 1633 7.26.2 1490
48.1 850 3.13.6 1985 7.29 279
3.38.1 2099 7.29.5 1085
Historia plantarum 3.39.8 1456 7.48.3 157
1.8.3 3147 3.41-48 326 7.50.4 1631
1.9.5 3035 3.45.6 326 7.67.14 1672
5.9.7 3008 3.46.5 326 7.69.1 1207
8.2.8 3555 3.47.2 3710 7.71.7 2099
8.6.3 689 3.56 2183, p.268 7.75.6 2989
3.58.1-2 743 7.77.4 2099
Theopompus of Chios 3.58.5 1502 7.80.4 465
964 3.59.2 1985 7.85.3 307
3.61.2 3363 8.17.1 1207
Fragmenta 3.66.2 1633 8.46.3 157
63 934 3.67.3 1985 8.73.5 465
3.69.6 3710 8.75.3 1333
Thucydides 3.72.1 57, 1633
115, 187, 188, 698, 969, 3.75.5 1633 Tatian
1007, 1059, 1074, 1419, 3.79.1 1633 Oratio ad Graecos
1453, 1491, 2532, 2759, 3.82.1 1633 22.1 932
2973, 3281 3.88.4 3114
1.18.3 466 4.15.2 2099 Teles
1.22.1 p.265 4.36.2 1083 Περὶ συγκρίσεως πενίας καὶ πλούτου
1.23.5-6 1828 4.41.3 1633 35 2892
1.24.7 1249 4.43.3 289
1.39.2 157 4.51.1 1633 Timaeus Praxidas
1.42.1 1409 4.61 2226 Fragmenta
1.42.1-2 2183, p.268 4.67.1 157 1.99 757
1.43.4 2197 4.70.2 157
1.57.1 3710 4.74.2 1619 Tragica adespota [Nauck]
504 index of ancient texts

Frag. 427 2728 7.3.1 399 Hellenica

1.7.29 1266
Ulpian Atheniensium respublica 2.4.20 1325
Digest 1.5 3541 2.4.21 2358
1.18.13.pr 1430, 1954 3.2.4 2705
Cynegeticus 4.4.17 3254
Vettius Valens 6.20 1114 4.5.7 2099
Anthologiarum 6.22 1114 4.8.10 1207
3.9.3 845 6.25 1114, 3304 5.1.5 1207
61 757 9.7 1114 5.3.17 1325
75 757 10.8 1114 5.4.65 1207
111 757 6.2.17 3254
124 757 Cyropaedia 6.3.14 3363
1.2.2 1735 6.4.21 193
Appendices ad anthologiarum libros 1.3.16-17 893 7.1.2 465
1.6.44 1059 1.4.22 3147
1.6.35 3147 Hiero
2.1.23 1253 4.10 3522
Xenophanes 2.2.21 2989 4.11 1895
Fragmenta 2.2.22 2989
10 1061 2.2.26 1207 Hipparchicus
19-20 1061 2.3.22 3169 2.5 1114
3.1.3 469
Xenophon 3.1.25 1215 Memorabilia
188, 549, 651, 923, 1074, 3.1.29 1215 1.1.9 2805
1363, 1938, 2346, 2531, 3.3.40 3169 1.1.12 2805
2876 3.3.44 1215 1.2.1 860, p.86 n.d
5.1.13 1735 1.2.10 56
Agesilaus 5.5.39 46, 1114 1.3.5 2805
2248 6.1.17 436 2.1.10 p.86 n.d
1.6-35 2251 7.1.44 2775 2.1.14 2197
1.13 2469 7.5.65 375 2.1.20 860
1.34 804 7.47 3790 2.1.22 12
2.15 804 8.1.9 890 2.6.20 499
2.17 804 8.5.11 2625 2.7.14 1735
3.2-5 866 8.8.4 1215 3.1.6 860, p.86 n.d
3.3-6 2251 3.1.7 3147
4.1-3 866 De equitande ratione 3.9.1 375
4.2 873 5.6 849 3.9.7 2205
4.4-8.8 866 3.10.13 2358
5.3 860, p.86 n.c De re equestri 3.11.17-18 946
10.1 860, p.86 n.c 11.13 2805 4.1.3-4 838
10.2 873 4.2.15 1735
11.9 860, p.86 n.c De republica Lacedaemoniorum 4.8.11 866
11.11 873 1.2 739
11.14 375 1.5-10 991 Oeconomicus
2.1 792 12.13 2170
Anabasis 2.2-6 792 20.15 1735
1.33 3540 2.14 3462
1.2.26 469, 1325 3.4-5 739 Symposium
1.3.13 46, 1114 3.5 825 4.23 301
1.4.8 1215 5-6 893 8.20 56
1.8.24 1085 5.1 852
2.4.1 399 5.3-4 830 Zeno
3.2.10 2469 5.6 822 1007
3.3.5 193 8.1 925
3.16.2 2254 8.5 804 Zenobius
4.3.26 3169 9.1 928 Epitome collectionum Lucilli Tarrhaei
4.3.29 3169 10.7 885, 1024 et Didymi
4.6 1024 13.1 1024 6.52 2628
5.1.15 2099 15.2 895
5.6.30 2165 15.9 895
5.8.20 2205
index of ancient texts 505

LATIN TEXTS

Apuleius 6.1.8 3304 Florus. L. Annaeus

Apologia (Pro se de magia) 7.13.1 1464 Epitome bellorum omnium annorum
97 685 8.16.1 1464 DCC
1.45.2 953
Metamorphoses Epistulae ad Brutum 1.45.16 953
2.12-14 685 13.2.5 342 2.33.59-60 2367
11.47 12
Epistulae ad familiares Frontinus, Sex. Iulius
Augustus (emperor) 10.14.1 342 De aquae ductu urbis Romae
Res Gestae Divi Augusti 12.10.1 1283 1.7 1102
1.2 1041 12.15.3 1315 7 1103
5 1391 13.6a 1377 13 1103
15 2422 15.4.6 694
30 2325 15.16.3 730 Strategemata
32 2397 16.17 1377 1.1 3620
1.7.6 349
C. Iulius Solinus In Catalinam 2.1.14 1391
Collectanea rerum memorabilium 1.1 1312 2.2.4 1391
35.9 p.92 2.8.17 1283 2.5.34 349
35.12 p.92 2.10 1408 2.9 89
3.12.27-28 1283 2.11 89
Catullus, C. Valerius 2.18 339
47: 4 2794 In Vatinium
64 893 31 7, 12 Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus)
Carmen saeculare
Cicero, M. Tullius In Verrem 9 804
992 1.83 402
3.45 402 Epistulae
De divinatione 3.123 402 1.1.58 720
1.2 685, 686 3.154 402
1.91 685 4.58 402 Satirae
2.2.4 893 5.62 1981 1.9.60-78 902
2.28 973 1.9.69-71 2794
2.43 973 Orationes philippicae
2.70 685, 973 2.7 402 Hyginus, C. Iulius
2.74 973 2.27 1408 Fabulae
2.75 973 2.77 402 55 971
2.87-100 685 5.23 342
2.148 973 5.24 1408 Hymnus Homericus Cererem
4.27.5 342 35 912
De fato 280 912
1007 Partitines oratoriae
39 1000 27 2534, p.267 Julius Caesar, C.
40-1 1006 27-60 p.266 992, 3696
42 1010 75-80 926
Commentarii de Bello Civili
De finibus Pro Cluentio 3.10 698
3.20.67 762 1604
65 866 Commentarii de Bello Gallico
Pro Flacco 1.1 2351
De natura deorum 66-69 484 1.16 389
3.6.15 3620 67 304, 1096 1.18 3557
69 33, 550 1.23 389
De officiis 1.26 389
1.7.23 2146 Pro fonteio 1.37 389
2.60 1364 5 2345 1.40 389
5-6 2352 1.45 2352
De re publica 2.2 389
1.43 1981 Pro Sestio 4.20-21 2391
6.20.21 953 1604 4.20-36 2283
4.21-22 2310
Epistulae ad Atticum 4.25 2310
4.17 2345 4.32 389
506 index of ancient texts

5.8-23 2283 Metamorphoses 33.49 349

5.13 2391 5.144 640 34.14 493
7.45 3317 12.250 640 34.48 1792
36.13 493
Juvenal (D. Iunius Iuvenalis) Tristia 36.24-25 493
Satirae 3.27-35 493 36.190 1195, 1200
3.232-67 630 3.59 493 36.190-91 1205
3.268-314 893 36.191 1203, 1205
5.14.96-106 2794 Persius (A. Persius Flaccus) 36.193 1205
6.156-60 1359, 1987 Satirae 39.32-36 493
6.158 1373 5.184 902 42.1 676
6.533 685 6.43-7 2276
10.147-87 2276 Pliny the Younger (C. Plinius Caecilius
14.96 1061 Petronius, C. Secundus)
Satyrica Epistulae
Livy (T. Livius) 74.13 901 3.5 1280
Ab urbe condita 102.14 2794 5.65 2430
1.1.1 543 5.87 2430
2.32 1660 Plautus, T. Maccius 7.6 2156
5.11.4 2776 992 7.29 1547
5.34-37 2339 Menaechmi 8.6 1547
6.42 1332 651 10.5 1981
26.21.7-10 2276 10.19-20 35
26.31.2 543 Pliny the Elder (C. Plinius Secundus) 10.21 2312
29.17-19 105 1579, p.86, p.89, p.92, 10.90 1102
29.20.6-7 3047 p.93 10.96 514
35.51.1-3 105 10.100 1241, 2575
37.59.2-5 2276 10.106 2312
44.8 3236 Naturalis historia 33.8 722
95.4-97.4 349 1.6a 1391
119.4 1283 2.226 1391 Propertius, Sex. Aurelius
5.36-37 2276 Elegiae
Lucan (M. Annaeus Lucanus) 5.70 3110, 3398 2.31.1-16 493
De Bello Civili 5.73 p.89 3.11.41-42 2276
2.554 349 5.74 2822, 2827
5.62 2442 Quintilian (M. Fabius Quintilianus)
Pharsalia 5.68 2838, p.92 Declamationes
3696 5.68-73 p.92 274 463
5.69 579, 580, p.92
Lucretius (T. Lucretius Carus) 5.70 264, 388, 577, 591, 594, Institutio oratoria
De rerum natura 1035, 1472, 1511, 1549, 129
3.978-1023 967 3397 5.10.114 543
5.71 572, p.92 9.1.14 176
M. Servius Honoratus 5.72 p.92 9.2.65 176
In Vergilii Aenidos libros 5.73 686, 738, 741, 749, 10.1.12 1604
8.168 402 751, 756, 762, 784, 985,
p.92 Sallust (C. Sallustius Crispus)
Macrobius, Ambrosius Theodosius 5.74 572, 584 Bellum Catilinae
Saturnalia 5.75 408, 1195, 1200, 1205 5 3512
2 152 5.83 1391 7 1283
4 152 5.102 1391 9 1283
6-7 152 5.150 2300 31 1283
6.24-25 1391 44 1283
Martial (M. Valerius Martialis) 6.112-14 2396 48 1283
Epigrammaton libri XII 10.30 722 51-52 1283
11.94 2794 10.124 1792 60 1283
12.56 699
Ovid (P. Ovidius Naso) 13.44 1046 Bellum jugurthinum
Amores 13.44-45 1037 91.7 543
2.13.23-4 12 15.126 349
24-28 848 Seneca, L. Annaeus (“Younger”)
Ars amatoria 24.172 901 De beneficiis
1.75-76 902 28.38 901 7.6.3 676
1.415-16 902 30.4-7 685
30.5 1570, 1576 De ira
32.10 699 745
index of ancient texts 507

Epistulae morales 2.41 2276

20.2 1934 Claudius 2.42 694
24 926, p.86 10 1275, 1276, 1285 2.42.5 2546
24.4 947 10.3 1281 2.42.6 2313
24.14 934 12 1328 2.52 2426
24.18 966, 967 28 1547 2.56 2397
47.17 1316 41 1272 2.58 2397
101 463 44 1559 2.68 2397
108.9-12 1934 45 1558 2.78 1195
2.85 484, 1054
Suetonius Tranquillus, C. Nero 3.20ff. 2426
Reference System of M. Ihm 20-25 1578 3.22 685
Julius 22-25 3349 3.25 985, 991
10 2345 29 1653 3.32 2426
25 2283, 2345 33.2 1564 3.36 1792
26 2345 34 685 3.65 1315, 1316
28 2345 35 1547 3.73 349, 2426
74-75 3709 42 2018, 3606 4.5 1185, 1281, 2357, 2374,
43 3606 2383, 2453, 3067
Augustus 47 3606 4.13.23-26 2426
5 804, 1042 48 3600 4.46 1315
8.3 1042 49 3604 4.67 1127
16 151 57.3 607 5.2.2 1033
25 151 5.8 1096
26 149 Vespasian 5.8.1 1280
29 149, 151 4.5 1792, 2793, 3328 5.9 720
29.1 491 5.6 1195 5.10 1767
35 151 6 1378 5.13 1096
41 1054 8 1356, 2313 6 1142
42 151 6.7 1792
49 1276 Titus 6.20 685
63 151, 2329 4 1276 6.22 1000
63-5 152 6 1276 6.31-7 2397
64 151 7 1359 6.32 2397
64-5 149 7.1 1373 6.36-7 2397
66 151 7.2 716 6.38 1141, 1315
67 149 44.3 2329 6.40 1391
72 1141 79.2 26 6.41 727
93 149, 2611 6.46 1299
94 151, 491 Tacitus, P. (or C.) Cornelius 6.48 1142
100 1042 Agricola 6.50 1145
197 151 4.3 985 6.50-51 1145
8 2393 6.51 22
Tiberius 10 2391 7-10 2386
2 1565 10-17 2386 11.4 721
2.2 26 13 2388 11.8 2397
8.37 694 11.25-38 1566
16 2325, 2327 Annales 11.29 1547
24 20 1.1 1579 12.1-2 1547
24.1 1039 1.3 149 12.3 1567
37 1276 1.4 1039 12.4 1567
42.2 1792 1.5 22, 1039 12.10-14 2397
43-44 1127 1.6-7 1039 12.15 2328
51.2 1033 1.7 1039 12.15-31 2306
55 147 1.10 1039 12.22 685
67 1039 1.11 720 12.23 1557, 2951, 2952
73.1 1145 1.13 1039 12.25 1547
73-76 1145 1.31 1315 12.35 1089
1.35 152 12.45 1494
Gaius Caligula 1.37 2113 12.48 1494
22.1 26 1.44 2113 12.50 1315
37 1174 1.80 1054 12.52 685
53.2 1211 2.1-4 2397 12.53 1547
58 1274 2.2 2397 12.54 1395, 1396, 1446, 1451,
59.1 1273 2.4 1096 1494, 1546, 1550
60 1282 2.27 685 12.60 720
508 index of ancient texts

12.65 1547 6-9 2381

12.66-67 1559 13-16 2381 Terence (P. Terentius Afer)
12.68 685 18-19 2381 Adelphi
12.69 1558 20 2377 651
13.1 1575 22 2381
13.2 1547 24.2 2381 Tibullus, Albius
13.6 1374 28.4 2351 1.2.96 901
13.7 1391, 1583 30-31 2381
13.8-9 1494 35 2381 Varro, M. Terentius
13.14-15 1547 973
13.15-17 1565 Historiae
13.43 1280 1.6 2392 Vegetius, Flavius
13.56 1315 1.16 1315, 1316 Epitoma rei militaris
14.2 1547, 1579 2.2 1359, 1373 2.25 3284
14.2-8 1574 2.8 607, 644 303 389
14.9 685 2.8 644
14.14 1577 2.37 1315 Velleius Paterculus
14.20 1391 2.58-59 1730 Historiae Romanae
14.26 1315 2.79 1378 2.59 151
14.29-37 2386 2.81 2301 2.94.4 2333
14.31-32 110 3.31 1315 2.95 2333
14.64 1315 3.66 1315 2.130.5 1033
15.6 1315 3.71-75 1356
15.6-28 3119 3.74 22 Virgil (P. Vergilius Maro)
15.28 1378 4.7 1279 703, 705
15.29 1391 4.17 2385, 2388
14.31 1027 4.68 2374 Aeneid
14.32.6 2392 4.80 1315 1.353-59 709
14.32 721 5.3-5 2600 4.257 705
14.33 721 5.4-5 902 4.314-321 705
14.47 777 5.5 304, 1061, 2571, 2794 4.460-61 709
14.65 1547 5.6 1549 6.460 716
14.65 1653 5.7 304, 1200, 1205 6.473-74 709
15.7-17 3066 5.9 236, 350, 718, 721, 1028, 6.789-805 2276
15.44 1052 1059, 1178, 1181, 1242, 6.853 2227
15.46 349 1376, 1546, 2228 8.704 491
15.65 1578 5.10 1098, 1792, 3348 8.720 491
15.67 1568 5.12 3167, 3517, 3821
16.4 1578 5.13 3816 Georgica
16.14 685 5.19 2374 4.509 2276
16.16 1315 4.560-61 2276
16.22 1315 Tertullian (Q. Septimius Florens
Tertullianus) Vitruvius (M. Vitruvius Pollio)
Germania Apologeticus De architectura
3 2381 26 2572 5.11.5 2159
4 2377 8.6 1102
10 3284, 3285
10.13-15 2723

INSCRIPTIONS

CIL IG II (2) JIWE

2.3272 2324 1.19.1241 34 23 622
6.701 804 1.19.1369.287 34
10.867 108 OGIS
13.668 342 ILS 417 669
VI 17130 2714 972 1494 586 1378
995 3119 669 1378
1368 722
IG 1372 722 SEG
1.442 945 8794 3349 24:34 34
9200 722 24:94 34
index of ancient texts 509

PAPYRI

BGU 149 2687 P. Fouad

4.1151 3035 150 2435, 2994 8 1378
151 2435, 2990
CPJ 153 2990 PMich
1.1-111 2980 153 III.53-59 2435 vol. 7, doc.
1.14-15 2996 155-56 3010 434, r, 3 991
1.59-62 2990 157 3010
20 2687 411 2687 PRyl
23 2687 413 2687 vol. 4, doc.
25 2687 414 2687 612 ext. 3 991
26 2687 488 2687
142-43 2996
510 index of ancient texts
index of ancient persons and places 511

INDEX OF ANCIENT PERSONS AND PLACES

Unqualified reference numbers after each entry indicate the relevant footnote numbers in this volume. For the appearance of
these names in Josephus’ own text, there was no need to duplicate existing and readily accessible resources: in Greek, the Na-
menwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus by Abraham Schalit (Brill 1968); in English, Louis H. Feldman’s General Index in the final
volume of the Loeb Classical Library edition (or Henry St. John Thackeray’s for the LCL War volumes); and various digital
search tools now available in English and Greek.

Numbers in parentheses immediately after names that are borne by more than one person are those of Feldman’s General Index.
Since not all of the names included in the General Index are discussed in this volume on War 2, the numbers may not be con-
secutive here. They are used nonetheless to facilitate comparison with that standard reference work and to avoid the creation of
a different enumeration (for each volume of Josephus).

Abijah (king of Judah)—866 2346, 2353-2354, 2357, 2361, 2116, 3019, 3026
Absalom (supporter of Menahem)— 2377-2378, 2385-2386, 2392-2394, Alexandra (1) (Salome)—20, 714, 1039,
2769 2406, 2416-2419, 2423-2428, 3630
Acchabaron (Acharabe)—3437 2443-2448, 2451, 2455-2462, 2470, Alexandra (2) (daughter of Hyrcanus II)
Achiab—337-339, 470 2487-2489, 2494-2497, 2500, 2519, —337
Achilles—433, 2806 2522, 2529-2537; Alexandria (Egypt)—87, 1983, 2433-
Acrabatene—1472, 3404 2547-2548, 2554, 2557-2558, 2587, 2435, 2442-2443, 2448-2450,
Aebutius (decurion)—3567 2632, 2635, 2644-2646, 2648, 2666, 2980-2996, 3035
Aelia Paetina (wife of Claudius)—1566, 2790, 2796, 2814, 2818, 2830, Ambivulus (Marcus, prefect of Judaea)
1568 2840, 2888, 2949-2954, 2966-2967, —1032, 1053-1054
Aeneas—705, 709, 716 3082-3083, 3140, 3150, 3160-3162, Ammaus (see Emmaus)
Afranius Quintianus—1575 3178, 3182, 3185, 3247, 3338-3344, Ananias (5) (high priest, son of Nede-
Agesilaus—832, 866, 873, 893, 3349, 3409, 3425, 3433, 3441, 3444, baeus)—1397, 1518, 1521, 1737,
2250-2251 3448, 3570, 3572, 3579-3580, 3583, 2566, 2631, 3405
Agricola (Gn. Iulius)—2393 3629, 3746-3747, 3775, 3785, 3798 Ananias (8) (son of Sadok)—2578
Agrippa (1) (Marcus Vipsanius)— 151, Agrippa’s Wall—1364 Ananias (Sadouki)—2782, 3731-3732
152, 320, 411, 1128, 1941, 2306, Agrippina (the Elder)—1133, 1147, Ananus (1) I (high priest)—1499-1500
2838, 3096 1563 Ananus (3) (son of Ananias, captain of
Agrippa (2) I—20, 22, 35, 318, 362, 433, Agrippina (the Younger, mother of temple)—1518, 1522, 2565, 3405
718, 1058, 1061, 1073, 1124-1144, Nero)—685, 1133, 1536, 1545-1547, Ananus (4) II (high priest, son of Anan-
1149-1152, 1155, 1162-1168, 1178, 1559-1563, 1570, 1574 us)—739, 1014, 1158, 1239, 1256,
1225, 1258, 1269, 1272, 1281, Akhenaten (Egyptian pharaoh)—804 1496, 1499, 1900, 1971, 2183, 2227,
1289-1292, 1295, 1298, 1308, 1311, Albinus—720, 1014, 1626, 1723, 2573, 2603, 2754, 2781, 2783, 3161,
1323, 1339-1340, 1346, 1349-1353, 1730-1740, 1750, 1762-1764, 3337, 3363, 3368-3369, 3375, 3388,
1357, 1361-1372, 1375-1379, 1388, 1768-1770, 1777, 1800, 1809, 1931, 3532, 3545, 3718, 3723-3724, 3732,
1395, 1475, 1546, 1584, 1587, 1684, 1969, 2567, 2634 3805, 3808-3809, 3819, 3829
1701, 1992, 2062, 2537, 3162, 3205, Alexander (1) (the Great)—78, 424, Ananus (5) (son of Jonathan)—3219,
3371 607 (pseudo), 1248, 1335, 1495, 3226, 3228
Agrippa (3) II—62, 315-317, 340, 362, 2254-2258, 2457, 2839, 2984-2987, Anastasia Nikolaevna (Grand Duchess
376, 443, 527, 727, 870, 902, 1125, 2991, 2999 of Russia)—627
1237, 1239, 1256, 1272, 1352, 1359, Alexander (4) Janneus—20, 108, Anaxagoras (philosopher)—804
1372-1374, 1376, 1379, 1393-1394, 463, 527, 1039, 1679, 2824-2828, Annaeus (see Jannaeus)
1428, 1487-1488, 1534-1536, 1545, 2838-2839, 2975, 3409, 3442 Anthedon—2838
1552-1555, 1587, 1589, 1722-1723, Alexander (8) (son of Herod and Mari- Antigonus (3) (son of John Hyr-
1810, 1825, 1900, 1935, 1955, amme I)—121, 596, 603 (pseudo), canus)—579, 977, 984
1982-1983, 1987, 2044, 2079, 2101, 608, 636, 642 (pseudo), 648 (pseu- Antigonus (4) (son of Aristobulus)—283,
2107, 2115-2116, 2127, 2130, 2139, do), 656-662 (pseudo), 694-697, 424
2147, 2154-2162; 711-715, 758, 875 (pseudo), 1129, Antioch (on the Orontes)—108, 114,
On the deliberative speech of Agrip- 1380, 1391, 1733 1186, 2938
pa: 2167-2169, 2176-2177, 2183, Alexander (9) (son of Alexander and Antiochus (3) III (the Great)—2404
2188-2190, 2198-2202, 2205-2209, Glaphyra)—695 Antiochus (4) IV (Epiphanes)—395,
2219-2220, 2224-2227, 2230-2231, Alexander (19), Marcus Iulius (son of 1014, 1766, 1977, 2448
2236-2238, 2244-2249, 2254, Alexander the alabarch)—1359, Antiochus (7) VII (Sidetes, Eusebes,
2258-2259, 2262-2263, 2266, 2270, 1378 Soter)—306
2272, 2278, 2281-2283, 2287, 22301, Alexander (24), Tiberius Iulius (procu- Antiochus (15) IV (king of Com-
2304, 2306, 2310, 2315, 2318-2320, rator in Judaea)—62, 87, 720, 724, magene)—513, 1386, 3072, 3077
2327-2328, 2331-2333, 2339-2340, 1378-1380, 1395-1397, 1739, 1984, Antiochus (19) (Syrian Judaean)—902
512 index of ancient persons and places

Antipas (3), Herod (Herod the tetrarch, Archelaus (4), Julius (son of Helcias) Bathsheba (wife of king David)—708
son of Herod and Malthace)—2, 33, —1221 Beit Haram—368
100, 119, 120, 121, 128, 132, 154, Areius (Arius, Roman centurion)—380, Beit Horon—1425, 3168, 3286-3293
155, 197, 200, 201, 207, 228, 340, 391, 440 Beleos (river)—1200, 1205, 1208
348, 368, 423, 479, 496, 501, 537, Aretas IV (of Nabatea)—24, 415-417, Berenice (1) (daughter of Salome
557, 564-565, 596, 667-669, 708, 432, 466, 1155 and Costobar, wife of Aristobu-
725, 1030, 1048-1050, 1061-1062, Ariovistus (German)—2353 lus)—1128, 2635
1125-1126, 1151, 1154-1156, 1159, Aristaenus—3363 Berenice (2) (daughter of Agrippa I
1162-1167, 1289, 1362, 1370, 1376, Aristides (Athenian general)—2239 and Cypros, wife of Herod)—716,
1587, 2635, 2824, 2975 Aristobulus (2) I (eldest son of John Hy- 1357-1359, 1372-1373, 1378, 1383,
Antipas (4) (relative of Agrippa rcanus)—579, 977, 984 1722, 1966, 1985-1989, 1992-1994,
II)—2634-2635, 2700, 3337, Aristobulus (3) (son of Alexander 2000, 2005-2008, 2101, 2159-2162,
3342-3344, 3347 Janneus and Alexandra)—306, 2949, 3571-3572
Antipater (3) (the Idumaean, father of 2228-2231 Beryllus (Nero’s secretary)—1682,
Herod)—22, 341, 417, 522-523, Aristobulus (5) (son of Herod and Mar- 1721, 1822
2998, 3035, 3133 iamme)—121, 596, 608, 642, 648, Berytus—411
Antipater (4) (son of Herod and Do- 697, 1128-1129 Betheza—2062
ris)—2, 20, 121, 197, 306, 501, 596, Aristobulus (6) II (son of Aristobulus Bethsaida—1046
636, 827, 1733, 2306 and Berenice, brother of Agrippa Bolanus, Vettius (Claudian legate)—
Antipater (5) (son of Salome, ora- I)—1221 2393
tor)—102, 128, 155, 167, 169, 175, Aristobulus (7) (the Younger, son of Borcius—3184
182, 183, 193, 200-207, 211-215, Herod of Chalcis)—1386 Boudicca—110, 2393
221-222, 231, 234, 496, 537-538, Armenia—24, 26, 149, 1391, 1581 Britannicus (son of Claudius)—
2635 Arruntius, Lucius—1142 1561-1566, 1574
Antipatris—3133 Artabanus III—1166, 2397 Brocchus (tribune of the plebs)—1290
Antonia (1) (fortress)—270, 272, 275, Artaxerxes (king of Persia)—526 Burrus (Nero’s advisor)—1570
316, 1058, 1401-1402, 2077, Arus—430, 434 Caesar (1), Gaius Julius (dictator)—26,
Antonia (2) (daughter of Marc Antony Asander (Pontic king)—2306 33, 408, 673, 699, 727, 804, 1042,
and Octavia, mother of Claudi- Ascalon (biblical Ashkelon)—592, 1035, 1843, 2283, 2306, 2325, 2333, 2345,
us)—1130, 1133, 1141, 1144, 1149, 2836, 2922 2352-2353, 2359, 2386-2387, 2990,
1378, 1546-1547 Asiaticus, Valerius—342, 1287 2996, 2998, 3035, 3508, 3709, 3727
Antonia (3) (daughter of Claudius and Aspurgus (king of Bosporus)—2306 Caesar (5), Gaius (son of M. Vipsa-
Petina)—1568 Athens—2245-2248 nius Agrippa and Julia)—149, 152,
Antonius Primus—2328, 2374 Athrongeus (shepherd, pretender to 1048-1050, 2611
Antony, Marc (Marcus Antonius)—26, Judaean throne)—354, 372-374, Caesarea Maritima—95, 108, 318, 424,
270, 342, 356, 410, 490, 581, 605, 380-381, 384, 388, 398, 440, 926 579, 1054, 1069, 1072, 1077, 1240,
694, 705, 746, 804, 1042, 1283, Atticus, Marcus Iulius Vestinus —1575 1438, 1677-1688, 1829, 1860, 2816,
1983, 2407, 2986, 2997, 3727 Augustus (Caesar, Octavian)—(Herod’s 2834, 3634
Apamea—2938 succession issues): 21, 22, 23, 24, Caesarea Philippi—1044, 1240, 1394
Apelles (advisor to Gaius Caligu- 33, 39, 96, 99, 110, 118, 134, 141, (Neronias)
la)—2836 144, 145, 146, 149, 152, 170, 217, Caesonia (wife of Gaius)—1280
Arabia Felix—2430 221-222, 225-226, 229-234, 304, Caiaphas (high priest)—1054, 1521
Archelaus (1) (king of Cappadocia)— 316-320, 350, 362, 368, 396-400, Cain (biblical figure)—743, 881
694, 699, 2313 411, 417, 424, 478-479, 490-491, Calgacus—1345
Archelaus (2) (son of Herod and Mal- 495, 500-501, 506, 511, 539, Callicrates—3363
thace)—(succession issues): 2, 3, 4, 546-547, 560, 570-572, 581-584, Callistus (freedman of Claudius)—1537,
12, 19, 22, 25, 27, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 589, 601-605, 615, 636-638, 642, 1547
39, 40, 53, 54, 62, 78, 81, 85, 87, 646-650, 652-653, 656, 659-666, Cambyses (king of Persia)—525, 2420
90, 93, 96, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 670, 674-676, 693-694, 699; Capellus, Julius—3775
110, 118, 119, 121, 131, 132, 133, 720-722, 804, 985, 1029-1030, Capharecho (Capharath, Kefar Ata)—
142, 154, 155, 156, 162, 163, 164, 1033-1034, 1039-1050, 1058, 1061, 3429
165, 167, 169, 178, 179, 180, 185, 1077, 1126-1127, 1145, 1150, 1240, Capito (Roman soldier)—1925
197, 200-208, 211-217, 225-228, 1276, 1281, 1287, 1353, 1374, 1653, Capitolium—1282
231, 234-238, 350, 356, 396, 424, 1682, 1689, 1810, 1843, 1941, 1983, Cappadocia—2313
475, 481, 496, 500-504, 507, 2316, 2321, 2322, 2333, 2339, 2342, Capri (island)—1127
529, 536-541, 546-547, 554, 557, 2357, 2366, 2382, 2423, 2434-2435, Caratacus (king of Belgae)—2393
560, 564-565, 582, 591, 594-596, 2571, 2611, 2822, 2828, 2838-2839, Cartamandua (queen of Brigantes)—
666-673, 676-680, 685, 690-693, 2997-2998 2393
696, 704-707, 711-715; Azizus (king of Emesa, husband of Carthage—2403
718, 724, 727, 745-746, 977, 1026, Drusilla)—1546, 2794, 3077 Cassius (1) Chaerea (tribune of the Prae-
1035-1037, 1133, 1150, 1154, 1362, Azotus—589-591, 1035 torian Guard, Gaius’ assassin)—
1376, 1475, 1660, 2546, 2552, 2627, Bacchides (Seleucid general)—3434 1274
2753, 2838, 3028 Bannus—749, 809 Cassius (3) Longinus (Gaius, governor
Archelaus (3) (agent of Archelaus the Bassus, Lucilius —2975, 2979 of Syria)—1377, 2546
ethnarch)—693-694 Batanea—33, 2953 Cataline, L. Sergius—342, 1283, 3512
index of ancient persons and places 513

Cato the Elder—37 father of Costobar)—2635 chief)—342, 1467, 1470, 1477, 1480,
Cato the Younger—699 Crassus, Marcus Licinius (governor of 1489, 1510, 1591-1595, 1599, 1671
Cave(s) of Arbela—3434 Syria)—3463 Eleazar (16) (son of Ananias, captain
Celadus (aide to Augustus)—625, Crete—615 of the temple)—1240, 1521-1522,
640-642, 652-653, 656, 659 Cumae—630 1737, 1948, 2565, 2567-2568, 2578,
Celer (tribune under Cumanus)—1450, Cumanus, Ventidius (procurator of Ju- 2655, 2676, 2708, 2750, 2774, 2783,
1525, 1544, 1704 daea)—318, 720, 1395-1398, 1403, 2794, 3387, 3405, 3731-3732
Cerealis (Roman general)—428, 2335, 1411-1414, 1423, 1431, 1444-1446, Eleazar (17) (son of Simon)—3324,
2338, 2374, 2392-2393 1450, 1455-1459, 1470, 1474-1476, 3372, 3377
Cestius Gallus (Roman governor of 1489, 1495-1497, 1503, 1508, 1525, Eleazar (18) (son of Neos?, son of Mat-
Syria)—84, 1194, 1366, 1376, 1425, 1533-1537, 1545, 1550, 1612, 1739, thias?)—3387-3388
1494, 1772, 1792, 1796, 1806-1809, 1810, 1877, 2060, 2219, 2566 Eleazar (22) (son of Jairus, despot of
1814, 1823-1824, 1872, 1878, 2062, Cylon (Athenian tyrant)—2903 Masada)—376, 513, 724, 727, 947,
2095, 2103, 2107, 2111-2113, 2117, Cypros (1) (wife of Antipater, mother of 1604, 1680, 1823, 1935, 2495-2496,
2156, 2462, 2512, 2634, 2724, 2836, Herod)—417, 2969 2534, 2559, 2561, 2711, 2717,
2852, 2949; Cypros (2) (wife of Agrippa I, daughter 2753-2755, 2761-2762, 2840, 2868,
(in Judaea) 3063-3064, 3095, 3102, of Phasael and Salampsio)—1371 2879, 2904, 2907, 2918, 2935, 3050,
3105-3106, 3131-3132, 3140-3145, Cypros (6) (fort at Jericho)—112 3357, 3361, 3828
3168, 3171-3178, 3198, 3200, 3205, Cyprus (island)—650 Elegabalus (emperor)—388, 605
3208-3213, 3216, 3221, 3230, 3240, Cyrenaica—2407-2408 Elpis (wife of Herod)—597
3244, 3253, 3261, 3271, 3276, 3284, Cyrus (king of Persia)—525 Emesa—3077
3310-3313, 3318-3319, 3324-3325; Dalmatia—2326-2327 Emmaus (Ammaus)—388-389, 430,
3333, 3341, 3344, 3348-3349-3352, Damascus—3353, 3361, 3402
3361, 3400, 3424, 3449, 3479, 3570, Daniel (prophet)—678, 685, 922, 936 Ephorus (4th c. B.C.E. historian)—966
3821 Danube (River)—2276 Esau (son of Isaac and Rebekah)—643
Chabulon (modern Kabul)—3085-3089 Darius (1) (Agrippa II’s cavalry com- Esebonitis (modern Hishban, Jor-
Chalcis—1360 mander)—2647, 2649, 3339 dan)—2824
Cicero (Roman senator, writer)—2316 Darius (4) III (king of Persia)—525-526, Essenes—12, 86, 686-687, 734, 738,
Cilicia—2316 2256 740-741, 745-746, 749-762, 767,
Circus Maximus—804 Darius (5) (king of Pontus)—2307 772-780, 783-784, 792, 798-801,
Claudius (emperor)—20, 106, 318, 342, Dassion (friend of Agrippa II)—3580 804-805, 815, 840-842, 854-865,
493, 527, 718-720, 1028, 1033, 1054, David (king of Israel)—12, 351, 444, 870, 893, 896, 899-901, 915, 985,
1125, 1128, 1150, 1272, 1275-1287, 708, 866, 1648, 1961 1000-1001
1290-1295, 1298-1299, 1304-1305, Debarittha—3568 Ethiopia—2420, 2429
1308, 1311, 1317-1320, 1323, 1328, Decapolis—584 Eunus (Syrian slave revolt leader)—353
1340, 1346-1350, 1357, 1364, Decebalus (king of Dacia)—2329 Eurybiades (Spartan general, Persian in-
1372-1379, 1382, 1396, 1427, 1475, Decianus, Catus (procurator in Brit- vasion)—2239
1494, 1499, 1518, 1532-1533, 1536, ain)—110 Eutychus (freedman of Ag rippa
1539, 1545-1549, 1553, 1559-1568, Delium—105 I)—1139-1140
1584, 1612, 1668, 1701, 1810, 1992, Demaratus (Spartan adviser of Xerxes Ezechias (Ezekias, brother of Anan-
2281, 2283, 2315, 2321, 2386-2387, I)—2226 ias)—1521, 2699
2392-2393, 2414, 2423, 2537, 2566, Demetrius Poliorcetes—3322 Ezekias (bandit chief)—341, 724, 2718
2951, 2990, 2999, 3013, 3072 Dicaearcheia (Puteoli)—621-622 Ezra—526
Claudius Lysias (tribune of Jerusalem Dido (of the Aeneid)—703, 705, 709, Fadus, Cuspius (prefect of Judaea)—720,
cohort)—1525 716 1372, 1376-1379, 1395, 1739, 2823
Clazomenae—1767 Diocletian (emperor)—2415 Faustus Sulla (brother of Messalli-
Cleitus (opponent of Josephus at Tibe- Diogenes the Cynic—787 na)—1568
rias)—3785, 3791-3793 Doetus (Judaean ‘revolutionary’)— Felix (procurator of Judaea)—708,
Clemens, Titus Flavius (Roman sena- 1514 720, 1395-1396, 1446, 1467, 1477,
tor)—2383 Domitian (emperor)—490, 493, 607, 1546-1550, 1589-1591, 1595, 1600,
Cleopatra (5) Selene (daughter of Ant- 1276, 1304, 1570, 2327, 2329 1612, 1626, 1639, 1645, 1680, 1682,
ony and Cleopatra)—699, Domitius Corbulo—26, 1303, 1378, 1698, 1713-1718, 1739, 1785, 1800,
Cleopatra (6) VII (last queen of 1391, 1494, 1575, 2104, 2316, 2328, 1810, 1820, 2694, 3002
Egypt)—356, 490, 581, 705, 746, 2466, 3066-3067 Festus, Porcius (procurator of Ju-
757, 1653, 1983, 2434, 2997 Drusilla (daughter of Agrippa I and daea)—720, 1595, 1604, 1606, 1626,
Cleopatra (7) (of Jerusalem, wife of Cyprus, wife of Felix)—708, 1546, 1682, 1721-1723, 1727, 1739, 1800,
Herod)—501 3077 1820, 1889, 2219
Cleopatra (8) (wife of Gessius Flo- Drusilla (granddaughter of Antony and Flaccus, Lucius Valerius (governor of
rus)—1767 Cleopatra, wife of Felix?)—1546 Asia)—304, 384, 550
Constantine (emperor)—2415 Drusus Julius Caesar (son of Tiberius Flaccus (legate of Domitian)—2413,
Constantius II (emperor)—20 and Agrippina the Elder)—1128, 2450
Coponius (prefect of Judaea)—547, 1133, 2382 Florus, Gessius (procurator of Ju-
718-719, 722, 1053-1054 Dynamis (wife of Polemon)—2306 daea)—104, 234, 306, 318, 527,
Costobar (1) (brother of Saul)— Egypt—33, 2447-2451 727, 1116-1117, 1121, 1220, 1626,
2634-2635, 2700, 3337-3344 Egyptian (the)—1639-1651, 1656, 1663 1673, 1682, 1732-1733, 1739,
Costobar (2) (husband of Salome, grand- Eleazar (15) (son of Deineus, bandit 1757, 1762-1768, 1772-1774, 1777,
514 index of ancient persons and places

1780-1788, 1791, 1796, 1800, Claudius after Gaius’ death)—1275 Itabyrion (Mt. Tabor)—3432
1803-1804, 1808, 1812-1815, 1823, Hamilcar Barca (father of Hannibal)— Ixion (mythical figure)—966-967, 970
1828, 1831, 1840, 1843-1845, 2404, 2406 Izates (Adiabenian king)—2460, 2794-
1874-1878, 1884, 1889-1890, Hannibal—2404, 2406 2795, 3159-3160
1894-1897, 1904, 1909-1918, 1926, Hasdrubal (brother-in-law of Hanni- Jacimus (descendent of Zamaris)—1988,
1929-1935, 1946-1950, 1954, 1961, bal)—2404 2646, 2953
1966, 1975-1977, 1981, 1989, 1994, Helcias/Hilkiah (1) (‘the Great’, Alexas Jacob (son of Isaac and Rebekah)—643
2000, 2005, 2020, 2025, 2065, 2076, III)—1221 Jacob (son of Judas the Galilean)—724,
2080, 2086-2092, 2095, 2098-2103, Helcias (2) (son of Helcias)—1221 1379, 2711, 2762
2107, 2111, 2117, 2123, 2137-2138, Helena (queen of Adiabene)—1379, Jacob (Josephus’ bodyguard)—3694
2153, 2156-2157, 2167, 2197, 2460, 3159 James (brother of Jesus)—1014, 1730,
2205-2207, 2227, 2535-2537, 2548, Helicon (advisor to Gaius Caligu- 3369
2556-2557, 2632, 2642, 2819, 2834, la)—2981 Jamnia (Iamneith)—589-591, 594, 1035,
3205, 3209, 3216, 3351, 3519 Herod (1) (the Great)—(succession is- 3439
Frontinus, Sextus Iulius (water commis- sues): 2, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, Jannaeus (son of Levis)—3580
sioner)—1102, 2393 33, 40, 51, 52, 59, 78, 93, 95, 96, Japhia (Yaphi’a, Iapha)—3430
Gaba (in Galilee)—2833 108, 110, 122, 142, 149, 169, 179, Jeremiah (prophet)—47
Gabaon (Gibeon, el-Jib)—3144 197, 200-202, 216-217, 270-271, Jericho—25, 112, 169, 266, 271,
Gabinius (governor of Syria)—134, 340, 281, 291, 306, 316-320, 325, 330, 355-356, 3394
424, 2838-2839, 3409 336-337, 340-341, 345, 348-350, Jeroboam (king of Israel)—866
Gadara (modern Umm Qeis)—584, 355-6, 362, 383-384, 389, 410-411, Jerusalem—13, 67, 108, 109, 241, 257,
2828 417, 424, 434, 458, 464-466, 271, 281, 582, 1064, 1102-1103,
Gades (modern Cadiz)—2279 475, 478, 500-501, 508, 511-517, 1364, 2140, 2159, 2164, 2653-2654,
Gaius (1) Caligula (emperor)—22, 26, 521-523, 528-530, 538, 541, 546, 2765, 3371
33, 423, 493, 517, 521, 527, 694, 554, 560, 570-574, 579-585, 589, Jesus (9) (called the Christ)—423, 749,
699, 718, 728, 815, 827, 1061, 596, 600-603, 609, 620, 636-638, 786-788, 843, 1123, 1449, 1637,
1086, 1094, 1125, 1133-1136, 650, 674, 694, 697, 705; 724, 727, 1648, 1971, 2619
1141, 1146-1151, 1155, 1166-1168, 746, 756, 841, 872, 989, 1033, Jesus (12) (son of Sapphas)—3385
1172-1179, 1185-1186, 1211, 1224, 1037-1039, 1044, 1061-1062, 1069, Jesus (14) (son of Gamalas/Gamaliel,
1227, 1237-1242, 1258, 1269-1276, 1077, 1102, 1126-1129, 1162, 1240, chief priest, friend of Josephus)—543,
1279-1280, 1285, 1294, 1299, 1304, 1295, 1345, 1351-1353, 1390, 1475, 1158, 1496, 1900, 2165, 2227, 2754,
1332, 1353, 1370, 1494, 1570, 1572, 1607, 1682, 1684-1689, 1701, 1988, 3161, 3368-3369, 3388, 3724, 3736
1637, 2216, 2283, 2378, 2760, 2836, 1992, 1994, 2148, 2159, 2306, 2321, Jesus (15) (bandit chief on borderland of
2951, 3527 2378, 2546, 2571, 2646, 2696, 2718, Ptolemais)—342
Gaius (2) (friend of Varus?)—421 2805, 2821-2822, 2824, 2828-2829, Jesus (16) (son of Sapphias)—3594-3596,
Galba (emperor)—1274, 1378, 2374, 2833, 2838-2839, 2874, 2969, 2975, 3648
2426 3074, 3133, 3162, 3355, 3434, 3449, Jesus (18) (a Galilean)—3726
Galilee—4, 264, 1192, 1362 3551 Jesus (21) (son of Ananias)—979, 1733
Gallus, A Caesennius (commander of Herod (5) (of Chalcis)—1357-1359, Jezebel (queen of Israel)—757
legio XII)—3119, 3127, 3131-3132, 1372, 1382, 1388, 1395, 1534, 1552, Jezreel Valley (Plain of Esdraelon, ‘Great
3449 1582, 2566 Plain’)—3567
Gamala—724, 3409, 3444 Herod (13) (of Tiberias)—3689, 3694 Joazar (1) (high priest)—51
Gaulanitis (modern Golan Herodion (1) (Herodium)—112 Joazar (2) (Ioesdrus, Yozar, Ioazar, son
Heights)—1045, 2830, 3441 Herodion (2) (W. Jerusalem)—311, 325, of Nomicus)—3730
Gaza—583, 2839 1941, 1994, 2741 John (2) the Baptist—749, 810, 866,
Gema—1447-1448 Herodias (daughter of Aristobulus and 2975, 3491
Gerasa (modern Jerash, Jordan)—2825 Berenice)—708, 1155, 1162, 1168 John (5) of Gischala—342, 376, 774,
Germanicus, Nero Claudius Drusus— Hezekiah (king of Judah)—1102, 2142 842, 902, 936, 1316, 1752, 1780,
1054, 1133, 1147, 1275-1276, 1565 Hippicus (tower)—2736 2526, 2571, 2783, 3167, 3210,
Gischala (Gush Halav, El-Jish)—3452, Hippos—584, 2829 3369, 3372, 3441, 3452-3454, 3514,
3454 Hiram (king of Tyre)—2571 3517-3521, 3524, 3527, 3532-3537,
Glaphyra (wife of Alexander son of Hycanus (2) I (John, high priest)—264, 3542-3550, 3557-3561, 3565, 3594,
Herod)—694-695, 699-703, 707, 306, 424, 518, 979, 982, 1014, 1129, 3656, 3659-3660, 3664, 3670, 3674,
710-717, 746, 758, 1391 2483, 2827, 2998, 3035 3680, 3684, 3698, 3703, 3707, 3709,
Gophna—3403 Hyrcanus (3) II (son of Alexander Jan- 3715-3718, 3726, 3746, 3797
Gorion (1) (son of Nicomedes)—2578, neus)—20, 33, 306, 560, 2228-2231 John (6) (Ioannes, the tax-collector of
2781, 3368 Iceni (British tribe)—110 Caesarea)—1841-1843, 1878
Gorion (2) (son of Joseph)—2781, Idumea—264, 1192 John (7) (son of Ananias)—3405
3368 Ilithyia—12 John (8) the “Essene” (from Essa)—686,
Gratus (1) (Roman infantry command- Illyricum—2325, 2327 3396, 3398
er)—320-323, 336, 367, 393, 397, Iotape (daughter of Aristobulus and Io- Jonathan (6) (Sadducee)—1014
403, 431, 434, 452, 473 tape)—1387 Jonathan (8) (son of Ananus, high
Gratus (2), Valerius (prefect of Judaea, Irenaeus (orator)—128, 129, 130, 156, priest)—1499, 1520, 1604, 1612-
15-? CE )—720, 1053-1054 496 1613, 1616, 1619
Gratus (3) (Roman palace guard, finds Ishmael (son of Phabi)—1521 Jonathan (9) (son of Sisenna)—3718
index of ancient persons and places 515

Jonathan (10) (Pharisee)—3732 919-920, 968 2824, 2884, 3420, 3468, 3618
Joppa—581, 3102, 3401 Lydda (Lod)—1511, 3400 Mount of Olives—1648
Josaphat (king of Judah)—866 Lysander (Spartan general)—2250 Mt. Asamon (Atzmon)—3126
Joseph (1) (son of Jacob and Ra- Lysanias (Iturean king)—1354, 1556, Mt. Carmel—1195-1196
chel)—643, 678-683, 689 1584 Mt. Olympus—955
Joseph (11) Caiaphas (high priest)— Machaerus (fortress)—112, 2975 Mucianus (governor of Syria)—1303,
1499 Macro (Praetorian prefect)—1144, 3547
Joseph (15) (son of Gorion)—2781, 1147 Mycalessus—279
3368 Magdala (Tarichea)—1586 Narbatene—1878, 1881
Joseph (16) (son of Simon)—3393 Malichus I (king of Nabatea)—417 Narcissus (freedman of Claudius)—1537,
Josiah (king of Judah)—804 Malthace (wife of Herod)—125, 234, 1547, 1566
Jotapata (modern Yodefat)—3425, 3444 424, 496, 557 Nebuchadnezzar (king of Babylon)—525,
Jotham (king of Judah)—866 Manaem (see Menachem) 678, 685, 690
Juba I (king of Numidia)—699 Manasseh (Judaean commander of Per- Neopolitanus (commander for Cestius
Juba II, Gaius Julius (king of Maureta- aea)—3395 Gallus)—2107, 2114-2117, 2130,
nia)—699-701, 704-705, 711 Marcellus (prefect of Judaea)—718-720 2140-2141, 2147-2148, 2156, 2611
Jucundus (cavalry commander in Cae- Marcellus, Marcus Claudius (husband Nero (emperor)—26, 134, 333, 340, 607
sarea)—1846, 1872-1873, 3274 of Julia the daughter of Augus- (pseudo), 631, 644 (pseudo), 685,
Judas (4) Maccabaeus (Judah the Has- tus)—152 739, 777, 804, 872, 1054, 1171-1172,
monean)—1425 Mariamme (2) I (wife of Herod)—608, 1279, 1304, 1374, 1378, 1386, 1391,
Judas (6) (the Essene)—684-686 1129 1494, 1547, 1559-1580, 1587-1589,
Judas (8) (son of Sepphoraeus, expert Mariamme (3) II (wife of Herod)—51, 1595, 1653, 1682, 1721, 1730, 1767,
in Jewish law, pulls down Herod’s 424, 596, 705, 746, 757 1769, 1796, 1810, 1819-1825, 1889,
eagle)—71 Mariamme (4) (wife of Herod of Chal- 2167, 2304, 2307, 2310, 2328, 2374,
Judas (9) (son of Ezekias, bandit cis, daughter of Olympias and Jo- 2392, 2466, 2535, 2998, 3119, 3331,
chief)—345-346, 3449 seph)—1385 3348-3349, 3600, 3604, 3606
Judas (10) (the Galilean)—71, 341, 718, Mariamme (6) III-IV (daughter of Aris- Nero Claudius Drusus (brother of Tibe-
724, 725-731, 1664, 1667, 2537, tobulus and Berenice)—707 rius)—1133
2559, 2711-2714, 2756, 2762 Mariamme (7) (daughter of Agrippa I Nero, Tiberius Claudius (first husband
Judas (12) (son of Jonathan, supporter and Cypros)—3072 of Livia, father of Tiberius)—1033,
of Eleazar the captain of the tem- Mariamme (8) (tower)—2736 1039
ple)—2578, 3731-3732 Marsus, Gaius Vibius (governor of Syr- Nicodemus (of the gospels)—2781
Julia (daughter of Augustus and Scribo- ia)—1364, 1377 Nicolaus (of Damascus)—1, 22, 94,
nia)—152, 1046 Marullus (prefect of Judaea?)—718 134, 174, 183, 206-209, 213, 217,
Julian (emperor)—20, 678 Masada (fortress)—112, 2560-2561 221-222, 228, 247, 537, 550,
Julianus, Marcus Antonius (procurator Masinissa (king of Numidia)—2406 556-557, 607, 701, 3353
of Judaea)—720, 1767 Matthias (4) (high priest)—51, Nicomachus (Pythagorean au-
Julias (city founded by Philip)—1046 Matthias (5) (son of Margalus, expert thor)—2825
Julias (founded by Antipas, also ‘Liv- in Jewish law, pulls down Herod’s Nicomedes I (king of Bithynia)—2781
ias’)—1050, 1585 eagle)—71 Nicomedes IV (king of
Julius Civilis (leader of Batavian re- Megacles (Athenian)—2903 Bithynia)—2312
volt)—2338, 2385, 2388 Memnon (mythical king of the Ethiopi- Nicomedes (Judaean, father of Gori-
Julius Classicus (Gaul)—2338 ans)—1201 on)—2781
Justus (of Tiberias)—71, 729, 1048, Menachem (Manaem, son of Judas Niger (the Perean)—686, 3161-3162,
1587, 1642, 2822, 3341, 3448, 3517, the Galilean)—71, 137, 347, 724, 3388, 3390, 3396
3670, 3724, 3797 729, 1948, 2559, 2623-2624, 2655, Noah—922
Kadasa (biblical Kedesh)—2831 2711, 2717-2718, 2721, 2724, 2749, Noarus (Varus, tetrarch of Libanus)—104,
Korah (rebel leader vs. Moses)—2627 2752-2756, 2762, 2771, 2774, 3285, 1557, 1908, 2818, 2830, 2949-2954,
Labienus, Quintus—283 3341, 3828 2959-2960, 2965-2967, 3570
Leonidas (Spartan general)—2249 Mero (Meroth, Ameroth)—3440 Numidia—2415
Lepidus, Marcus Aemilius (trium- Messallina (wife of Claudius)—1547, Obodas III (king of Nabatea)—417
vir)—1042 1563-1568 Octavia (sister of Augustus/Octavi-
Libya—700 Metilius (Roman commander)—2776- an)—699, 1566
Livia Drusilla (wife of Augustus)—152, 2777, 2793-2795, 2853, 3344 Octavia (daughter of Claudius, wife of
368, 1033, 1039, 1046, 1050, 1077, Mithridates (3) VI (king of Pon- Nero)—1563, 1567, 1574
1689 tus)—2228, 2306-2307 Omri (king of Israel)—424
Longinus (military tribune for Cestius Mithridates (5) (king of Perga- Omrit—1044
Gallus)—3272 mum)—3035 Orodes (king of Armenia)—1054
Lucanus, Marcus Annaeus—1575 Modius, Aequus—2967 Ostia—621
Lugdunum (Gaul)—1165 Moesia—2327 Otho (emperor)—1276, 1378, 1730,
Lugdunum (Spain)—1165, 1169 Monobazus (1) Bazeus—3159 2374
Lusitania—2366 Monobazus (2) II (Adiabenian king)— Pacorus (1) (son of Parthian king Orodes
Lycia—2315 2462, 3159 II)—283
Lycurgus (Spartan lawgiver)—759, Moses—461, 758, 804, 842, 878, 892, Pacorus (2) (cupbearer to prince Pa-
770, 804, 817, 830, 852, 885, 895, 895, 935, 1637, 1642, 2420, 2627, corus)—283
516 index of ancient persons and places

Paetus, Caesennius (Syrian legate)— Pisistratus (Athenian aristocrat)—2903 —720, 1053-1054

3066, 3072, 3077 Piso, Gaius Calpurnius—1575 Rursus, Claudius—26
Paetus, L. Iunius Caesennius (father or Piso, Lucius Calpurnius—2321 Sabina, Flavia (niece of Vespasian?,
uncle of Caesennius Paetus)—3119 Pistus (father of Justus of Tiberias)— wife of L. Iunius Caesennius Pae-
Pallas (imperial freedman of Claudi- 3670 tus)—3119
us)—1396, 1537, 1546-1547, 1612, Placidus (general of Vespasian)—3432 Sabinus (1) (procurator of Syria)—96,
1721, 1820 Plautia Urgulanilla (wife of Claudi- 106, 107, 110, 116, 118, 238, 246,
Paltus (Syria)—1201 us)—1568 249-250, 253-255, 272, 278, 284,
Pamphylia—2314-2315 Plautius, Aulus—2281, 2387, 2389 303, 307, 311, 315-316, 329, 389,
Panias—572, 1044, 1054 Plautius Lateranus—1575 402, 405, 458-459, 674
Parthia—24, 108 Pliny the Younger—2312 Sabinus (3) (Syrian soldier)—1073
Paul (apostle)—617, 749, 1546, 1595, Polemon (of Chalcis)—1359 Sabines—106
1722 Polemon I (king of Pontus)—2306- Sadducees—32, 737, 742, 1000-1001
Pausanias (Spartan general)—2249 2307 Salamis—279
Pella—2826 Polemon II (king of Pontus)—2307 Salampsio (daughter of Herod)—600,
Perea—266, 348, 1362, 3161 Pompey (Pompeius Magnus)—33, 134, 1371
Petra (Nabatean capital)—415 304-5, 395, 550, 583, 605, 699, 727, Salome (1) (sister of Herod)—34, 101,
Periander—691 902, 1374, 1679, 2038, 2228-2229, 103, 105, 123, 154, 155, 228, 557,
Petronia (daughter of Petronius, wife of 2233, 2265, 2307, 2312, 2316, 2483, 589, 594-595, 1032-1033, 1037-1039,
Vitellius)—1179 2822, 2827-2829, 2839, 3035 1050, 2635
Petr o n iu s (Sy rian leg ate )— 7 1 8 , Pomponius Secundus (Quintus)—1280, Salome (3) (daughter of Herodias and
1094-1096, 1178-1179, 1185-1186, 1334, 1349 Herdo)—597, 1386
1189, 1218-1220, 1224, 1227, Pomponius Secundus (Publius)—1280, Salvius (slave revolt leader, 104-101
1230, 1236-1239, 1246-1247, 1251, 1338 B.C.E.)—353
1255-1265, 1268-1271, 1460, 1494, Popilius Laenas, Gaius (Roman sena- Samaria—4, 428, 578
2159 tor)—2448 Samaria Sebaste—318, 424, 430,
Phaedra (wife of Herod)—597 Poplas (friend of Archelaus)—92 578-580, 1240, 2835
Pharisees—20, 32, 731, 736, 742, 867, Poppea Sabina (wife of Nero)—493, Samson—1997
893, 1000-1002, 2581-2584 1570, 1574, 1767, 1820 Samuel (prophet)—728, 1997
Pharnaces (son of Mithridates VI)— Prasutagas (king of the Iceni)—110 Sappho—430, 435-436
2306-2307 Ptolemais (Akko)—408, 420, 1189-1190, Saturninus, Gnaeus Sentius—1279,
Phasael (1) (brother of Herod)—281-283, 2923 1286
522, 591, 600, 872, 940 Ptolemy (1) I Soter—2984 Saul (1) (king of Israel)—647, 759, 926,
Phasael (3) II (nephew of Herod)—1371, Ptolemy (2) II Philadelphus—408, 2571, 2859,
2635 2984 Saul (2) (member of Jewish royal fam-
Phasael (4) (tower)—280, 2736 Ptolemy (9) XII (Auletes)—2445 ily)—2634-2635, 2700, 3337-3344
Phasaelis—589-591, 1035-1037 Ptolemy (12) (brother-in-law of John Scaevinus, Flavius—1575
Phasaelis (wife of Antipas)—1155 Hyrcanus)—2483 Scaurus (Roman general)—306, 2228,
Pheroras (younger brother of Herod)— Ptolemy (16) (friend of Herod and 2233
600, 705, 746 Archelaus)—93, 127, 142, 397, 431, Schanzkowska, Franziska (Anna Ander-
Philadelphia (modern Amman, Jor- 434 son)—627
dan)—2823 Ptolemy (17) (brother of Nicolaus of Da- Scipio (Quintus Caecilius Metellus Scip-
Philip (1) II (of Macedon)—56, 2253 mascus)—228, 496 io Nasica)—699
Philip (6) (son of Herod and Cleo- Ptolemy (18) (procurator or bailiff of Scipio Africanus (P. Cornelius Scipio
patra of Jerusalem)—96, 99, 106, Agrippa)—3569, 3572, 3578 Aemilianus Africanus)—662, 2406
197, 362, 501, 507-508, 564-565, Ptollas (see Poplas) Scopus—3196
570-574, 669, 725, 1029, 1044-1046, Pyrrhus (king of Epirus)—304 Scribonia (daughter of Augus-
1150-1151, 1155, 1352-1353, 1362, Pythodoris (wife of Polemon)—2306- tus)—1033
1370, 1376, 1386, 1554-1555, 2558 2307 Scribonianus, Lucius Arruntius Camil-
Philip (7) (son of Jacimus, descendent Quadratus, C. Ummidius Durmius— lus—1280, 2335
of Zamaris, general of Agrippa 1376, 1396, 1450, 1455, 1494-1496, Scribonius (Pontic usurper)—2306
II)—1988, 2648-2649, 2796, 2948, 1504-1514, 1518, 1525, 1528, 1531, Scythopolis—2827
2953, 2962, 3162, 3338-3344, 3349, 1545, 1550 Sebastenes—318-319, 1401, 1704,
3409, 3441 Queen of Sheba—1095, 2571 1992
Philippus, Tiberius Claudius—622 Quirinius, Publius Sulpicius—33, 547, Sejanus, Lucius Aelius—1125, 1166,
Philo of Alexandria—1378 676, 718, 721-723, 1494, 1500, 1276, 1547
Philopoemen (Greek general)—3363 2714 Seleuceia—3442
Phoebus (friend of Agrippa II—3184- Qumran—12, 784, 915 Seleucus I Nicator—114
3185 Rhescuporis (king of Bosporus)—2306 Seneca the Elder—1211, 1570
Pilate, Pontius (prefect of Judaea)— Rhine (River)—2276 Seneca the Younger—1575
718-720, 1051-1061, 1065, 1072, Rome—484, 489-493, 630 Sepph (Safad)—3438
1076, 1090, 1096-1099, 1102-1120, Roxane (daughter of Herod)—597 Sepphoris—340, 345, 422-423, 1047,
1123, 1127, 1142, 1182, 1231, 1238, Rufus (1) (Roman cavalry command- 3123, 3445, 3449
1246, 1406, 1418, 1439, 1894, 1914, er)—320-323, 336, 403, 434, 452, Seron (general of Antiochus IV)—1425
1942, 2056-2058, 2159, 2602 473 Sextus Caesar (governor of Syria)—
Pillars of Hercules—2371 Rufus (4), Annius (prefect of Judaea) 1274
index of ancient persons and places 517

Sidon—605, 2938 Sychaeus (Dido’s husband)—705, 709 Trachonitis—362, 2646

Sigoph (modern Sakhnin)—3431 Syllaeus (viceroy of Obodas III)—417 Trajan (emperor)—35, 1241, 2312,
Silanus, Lucius Junius—1563, 1567, Syria—33, 134, 234, 3547 2329, 2466, 2575
1575 Syrtis (Maior and Minor)—2412 Tyrannius Priscus (camp prefect for Ces-
Silas (3) (the Babylonian)—686, 3162, Tacfarinas (led rebellion against Rome)— tius Gallus)—3212-3213, 3271
3396 2426 Tyre—1495, 3551
Silas (4) (Josephus’ commander in Tibe- Tantalus (legendary figure)—966-969, Umbricius (friend of Juvenal)—630
rias)—3665, 3671-3672 973 Ummidius Durmius, Gaius—408
Silius, Gaius (Roman senator)—1566 Tarichaea (Galilee)—271, 3433, 3577, Upper City (Jerusalem)—3208
Siloam—2142 3591 Varro (governor of Syria)—571,
Simeon (son of Gamaliel, Pharisee)— Temple (in Jerusalem)—291, 304-305, Varus, P. Quinctilius (governor of Syr-
342 1415, 2145, 2148, 2524-2525, 2588- ia)—4, 100, 106, 110, 111, 114,
Simon I (high priest, son of Onias I, the 2590, 2655, 2673 118, 235-239, 243, 246, 251, 255,
Just)—866 Temple of Apollo (Palatine)—489-493, 270, 278-279, 316, 329, 337, 350,
Simon (Hasmonean high priest)—560 804 388-389, 395, 402-408, 411, 419-426,
Simon (6) (high priest)—51 Terentius Maximus (false Nero)—607 430, 435, 438-440, 456, 459, 462,
Simon (7) of Perea (royal slave)—330, Teuta (queen of Illyria)—2325 466, 478, 481-483, 502-507, 551,
349-350, 354-358, 370-372 Thamna—3398 578, 1047, 1185, 1494, 2382, 2388,
Simon (11) (son of Judas the Galile- Themistocles—56, 2239 3065, 3137, 3424, 3449, 3463
an)—724, 1379, 2711, 2762 Theophilus (high priest)—1499, 1823 Varus (see Noarus)
Simon (14) (son of Gamaliel)—2781, Theopompus (4 th c. B.C.E. histori- Vatinius—12
3368, 3517, 3718, 3723-3724 an)—966 Venutius (king of Brigantes)—2393
Simon (15) (son of Jonathan)—2783, Therapeutae—12 Veranius, Quintus (tribune of the
3732 Thrace—2321, 2323 plebs)—1290
Simon (17) (brother of John of Gischa- Thrasea Paetus, P. Clodius—1279, Vespasian (emperor)—22, 108, 134,
la)—3718, 3724 1575 388, 395, 407-408, 428, 493, 628,
Simon (18) (Josephus’ bodyguard)— Thrasybulus—691 739, 748, 804, 938, 1185, 1276,
3600-3605 Tiberias—340, 1048, 1054, 1394, 1587, 1303, 1378, 1983, 1987, 2313, 2316,
Simon (19) (son of Saul)—324, 2880, 3597, 3681, 3746 2328, 2357, 2374, 2382, 2392, 2426,
2887, 2897, 2902, 2918 Tiberius (emperor)—20, 22, 35, 152, 2448, 2450, 2516, 2641, 2794, 2796,
Simon (20) the Essene—684-686 433, 676, 685, 694, 1033, 1039, 2805, 2825, 2938, 3071, 3078, 3119,
Simon (21) (son of Ananias, brother of 1046-1050, 1053-1054, 1058-1059, 3193, 3284, 3322, 3348-3349, 3400,
Eleazar)—2631 1123-1127, 1131-1135, 1139-1142, 3403, 3449, 3816
Simon (24) bar Giora—22, 376, 2526, 1145-1151, 1155, 1273, 1276, 1280, Vienna—673
2825, 3167-3169, 3276, 3324, 3372, 1287, 1299, 1304, 1332, 1494, 1547, Vindex, Gaius Julius (governor of Lug-
3375, 3396, 3527, 3821, 3827, 3829 1847, 2313, 2316, 2333, 2602 dunensis)—2338, 3349
Sisyphus (legendary king of Tiberius Gemellus (grandson of Tibe- Vinicius, Marcus—1287
Corinth)—966-968 rius)—1127, 1132-1134, 1139 Vitellius (1) (emperor)—1276, 1303,
Soaemus (2) (tetrarch of ‘Iturea’)—1557, Tiglath-Pileser (king of Assyria)—2831 1378, 2374, 2448, 2450
2951-2952 Tigranes (1) (son of Alexander and Gla- Vitellius (2) (governor of Syria)—718,
Soaemus (3) (king of Emesa)—2952, phyra)—695, 1391 1061, 1179, 1499, 2397
2966, 3077-3078 Tigranes (2) (king of Parthia)—149, Vologeses (king of Parthia)—26, 2464,
Socrates—2187, 2499, 2805 1391, 2466 2466, 3066
Sogane—3443 Tiridates—26, 685, 1378, 1391, 2466 Vonones (Parthian king)—2397, 2399
Solomon (king of Israel)—12, 845, 848, Titus (emperor)—26, 274, 284, 304-305, Xerxes I (king of Persia)—525-526,
851, 866, 2571, 3468 395, 408, 438, 514, 543, 607, 716, 2226, 2237-2245
Solon (Athenian lawgiver)—513, 968 902, 945, 1185, 1261, 1276, 1345, Xystus—2159
Soranus, Borea—1279, 1575 1359, 1366, 1373, 1378, 1565, 1615, Yosep (nephew of King Herod, husband
Sossius (governor of Syria)—1345 1941, 1955, 1963, 1972, 1983-1984, of Olympias)—450
Sparta—2248 2159, 2235, 2328, 2364, 2377, 2406, Zamaris (Herod’s bodyguard)—1988,
Spartacus (leader of slave revolt)—349, 2448, 2462, 2472, 2516, 2526-2527, 3074, 3162
372 2729, 2794, 2805, 2938, 3055-3056, Zenon (Zenodorus) (leases domain of
Strato’s Tower (see Caesarea Maritima) 3071, 3160, 3196, 3198, 3205, 3210, Lysanias)—571, 1354
Sulla (Agrippa II’s bodyguard)—1988 3222, 3240, 3349, 3403, 3452, 3664
Susa—1201 Tityus (legendary giant)—966-967, 971
518 index of ancient persons and places
index of modern authors 519

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

References are first to footnote numbers and then, if the scholar appears in either excursus (on the Essenes or on Agrippa’s
speech), to the relevant page and/or note.

Abel, F. M. 388 Bernett, M. 108, 271, 318, 423, 424, 2793, 2794, 2794, 3340, 3375, 3805
Aberbach, M. 1396, 1451, 1549, 1550 516, 571, 572, 718, 720, 1044, 1046, Colautti, F. M. 66, 67, 1403, 1450,
Adam, A. p.84 n.a 1048, 1049, 1054, 1058, 1077, 1151, 1637
Adams, C. E. P. 2391 1176, 1240, 1364, 1376, 1394, 1689, Collingwood, R. G. 2386, 2387, 2393
Ahl, F. 225 1857, 2159, 2575, 3681 Collins, J. J. 2794
Aicher, P. J. 1102, 1103 Bickerman, E. J 1826, 2316 Cotton, H. M. 547, 718, 1376
Aitken, E. 963 Birley, A. R. 2386 Coulston, J. C. 1291, 2392, 3284 1291
Aldrete, G. S. 15, 16, 662, 2423 Bishop, M. C. 2392, 3284 Coulter, C. C. 3709
Alston, R. 2980, 2992 Black, M. 731, 2754, p.84 n.a, p.88, Courcelle, P. 947
Anderson, G. 20 p.89 Cribiore, R. 129, 792
Alföldy, G. 252, 353, 720 Blenkinsopp, J. 982 Crook, J. A. 40, 147
Alon, G. 731 Boardman, J. 1855 Croom, A. 12, 777
Alpers, M. 673 Boffo, L. 720 Cross, F. M. p.84 n.a
Ando, C. 1059, 1240, 1738, 1810, 1843, Bond, H. K. 1051, 1053, 1058, 1105, Cumont, F. 951
1865, 1900, 1954 1115 Cunliffe, B. W. 2339
Andreau, J. 2687 Bonfante, L. 12, 777 Dabrowa, E. 3067
Andrews, C. 1205 Bowersock, G. W. 415, 1094, 1201, Dalby, A. 759
Applebaum, S. 408 2430, 2431 Debevoise, N. C. 2466
Arav, R. 1046 Bradley, K. R. 252, 349, 354, 382, 607, Degrassi, A. 1792
Attridge, H. W. 2815 3349 Deines, R. 2805
Avi-Yonah, M. 3597 Braun, M. 704 Delia, D. 1983, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2443,
Aviam, M. 340, 3426 Braund, D. 23, 33, 217, 699, 727, 2457, 2990, 2996, 3050
Avigad, N. 1965 2306 Destinon, J. V. 3623
Bachmann, H. G. 2361 Breeze, D. 407 Dilke, O. A. W. 953
Badian, E. 1843 Brenk, F. E. 1546 Dixon, K. R. 407
Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 739, 1147, 2351, Brighton, M. 1604 Dixon, W. H. pp.92-93 n.l
2794 Brinton, C. 41 Dodge, C. H. 1077, 1103
Bar-Kochva, B. 1425, 3145, 3168, 3288, Broshi, M. 1419 Domaszewski, A. von. 2327, p.267 n.f
3289, 3290, 3291, 3293, 3299, 3300 Browning, I. 2825 Domergue, C. 2361
Barclay, J. M. G. 484, 966, 991, 1640, Brunt, P. A. 107, 110, 673, 720, 721, Donfried, K. 484
2511, 2600, 2620, 2980, 2984, 2996, 722, 1597, 1843, 2688 Döring, K. 973
2998 Burchard, C. p.88 Dover, K. J. 2794
Barrett, A. 1033, 1147, 1173, 1178, Burrell, B. 1072 Drews, R. 1201
1273, 1274, 1396, 1546, 1559, Butcher, K. 1360, 3068, 3353 Drexler, H. 2648, 2775, 3340, 3367,
1563, 1565, 2306 Caes, C. 951 3368, 3375
Bastomsky, S. J. 607 Campell (2002) 397, 437 Dupont-Sommer, A. p.93 n.l
Bauer, W. p.93 n.l Caronna, E. L. 1291 Duttlinger, R. 94
Baumgarten, A. I. 736, 737, 740, 915, Carroll, J. T. 3119 Earl, D. C. 745
1014 Cartledge, P. 2251 Eck, W. 718
Baumgarten, J. M. 773 Casali, S. 491 Eckstein, A. M. 284, 527, 745, 758,
Beall, T. S. 12, 740, 773, 780, 804, 845, Casson. L. 2322, 2423 1256, 1409, 1693, 2176, 2813, 3350,
870, 895,901, p.84 n.a Cavallin, H. C. C. 1012 p.266 n.d
Beard, M. 2620 Champlin, E. 493, 607, 804, 1568, 1570, Edmondson, J. 1060
Beck, M. C. 951 1576, 1577, 1579 Edwards , D. R. 340
Bederman, D. J. 193, 2465, 2813, Chancey, M. A. 340 Egger, R. 1446
3190 Chapman, H. H. 536, 546, 603, 628, Elledge, C. D. 1012, 2805
Beebe, H. K. 108, 1682 1060, 2525, 2528, 2794 Engle, A. 1190, 1200, 1205
Begg, C. 2030 Chilton, B. 1002 Erdkamp, P. 2423
Bekker, I. 3615 Chilver (1979) 607 Eyben, E. 1409
Bell, H. I. 2980 Claridge, A. 491 Farmer, W. R. 350, 378, 388, 398, 458,
Bellemore, J. 94 Clarke, K. 621, 1190 623, 1094, 2794
Bergmeier, R. 740, 804, 864, 978, 985, Cloud, J. D. 1604 Faulkner, N. 1597, 2686, 2688
2825, 3167, p.84 n.a, p.87 n.g, p.88, Coggins, R. J. 1446 Feldman, L. H. 67, 720, 966, 982,
p.89 Cohen, S. J. D. 246, 264, 604, 686, 1057, 1061, 1105, 1641, 1698, 1700,
Berlin, A. 411, 1855 1757, 1979, 2492, 2648, 2655, 2681, 1997, 2030, 2034, 2794, 2794, 3358,
520 index of modern authors
3468 Har-El, M. 1425 Kokkinos, N. 2, 101, 103, 119, 501,
Ferguson, J. 762, 804 Harland, P. A. 2542 591, 596, 600, 669, 671, 692, 704,
Feugère, M. 1058, 1089 Harris, W. V. 252, 467, 1983, 2980 707, 1032, 1046, 1126, 1128, 1150,
Filow, B. 2327, 2328 Hartal, M. 3681 1151, 1155, 1165, 1221, 1289, 1370,
Fine, S. 1829 Haselberger, L. 1282 1373, 1394, 1546, 1723, 1730, 1767,
Finley, M. I. 252 Healy, J. F. 1205 1795, 1820, 1824, 1825, 2635, 3331
Firpo, G. 57, 342, 1604 Henderson, B. W. 2420 Konstan, D. 40,
Flesher, P. V. C. 1829 Hengel, M. 341, 342, 395, 463, 724, Kraabel, T. A. 2794
Frank, T. 676, 2345, 2441 727, 731, 1604, 1972, 2754, 2790, Kraeling, C. H. 318, 1058, 2825
Fraser, P. M. 3035 2794, p.90 Krause, J.-U. 35
Freijeiro, A. B. 2361 Herman, G. 40 Kreissig, H. 2686, 2688
Freund, R. A. 1046 Hestrin, H. 772 Krieger, K-S. 1051, 1089, 2655
Freyne, S. 1980 Hirt, S. C. 704 Kuhn, H-W. 1046
Frier, B. W. 921, 991 Hobsbawm, E. J. 1597 Kushnir-Stein, A. 1394, 1824
Frova, A. 720 Hodge, A. 1102 Lämmer, M. 3681, 3691
Gabba, E. p.267 n.h Hoehner, H. W. 119, 1165 Laqueur, R. 1975, 2648, 3367, 3375,
Gagé, J. 1546 Holum, K. G. 108, 1689 p.88, p.266
Galimberti, A. 1039, 1176, 1272, 1274 Honigman, S. 2980 Lateiner, D. 1597
Gallivan, P. 607, 3119 Horbury, W. 2984, 3184, 3785 Laurence, R. 2391
Garnsey, P. 772, 1977, 1978, 1981, Hornblower, S. 1828 Lausberg, H. 140, 2713, p.267
2422, 2423, 2427, 2447 Horsley, R. A. 340, 1397, 1597, 1604 Le Bohec, Y. 320, 321, 1058, 1089,
Garrity, T. p.266 n.b Horsley, R. A. 342, 1597 2113, 2301, 2357, 3212, 3329, p.267
Gerlach, E. 976 Humphrey, J. H. 1077 n.f
Ghiretti, M. 547, 718 Huntsman, E. D. 1033 Le Moyne, J. 730, 737, 1014
Gichon, M. 1425, 3127, 3145, 3168, Hurley, D. W. 1147 Lémonon, J-P 1105
3214, 3240 Ilan, T. 758, 2782, 2783, 3730, 3732 Lendon, J. E. 721, 739, 745, 1058,
Gildersleeve, B. L. 958 Isaac, B. H. 108, 408, 788, 1430, 1495, 1240, 2796
Gilliver, C. 79, 389, 407, 409, 430, p.268 n.j Leon, H. J. 484
3101, 3133, 3144, 3155, 3168, 3236 Isings, C. 1190 Leveau. P. 1102
Ginsburg, J. 1563 Isserlin, B. S. J. 2242 Levick, B. 107, 721, 722, 1039, 1145,
Glasson, T. F. 951 Knight, J. 951 1272, 1276, 1283, 1294, 1299, 1328,
Gleason, M. W. 749, 758, 1072, 1077 Jebb, R. p. 266 n.b 1351, 1356, 1364, 1379, 1537, 1560,
Gnuse, R. K. 678, 679, 685 Jensen, M. H. 119 1563, 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1826
Goldmann, Z. 1205 Jeremias, J. 304, 1102, 1419, 2571, Levine, L. I. 108, 340, 1675, 1679,
Goldsworthy, A. 1058, 1081, 1089, 3207 1682, 1700, 1820, 1829, 2816
3171, 3236, 3270 John, W. 421 Levison, J. R. 5, 7, 8, 12
Goodchild, R. G. 408 Johns, C. N. 408 Lightfoot, J. B. 851
Goodenough, E. R. 1061 Johnston, J. 2687 Lindner, H. 2236, 2292, 2355, p.265
Goodman, M. 740, 772, 1948, 2085, Jones, A. H. M. 114, 368, 388, 491, n.a, p.266, p.267 p.g
2627, 2655, 3337, 3358, 3375, 3549, 591, 676, 1035, 1048, 1049, 2434, Lintott, A. W. 33, 107, 722, 727, 1847,
3805, p.84 n.a 2448, 2537, 2825, 3597, 3781 2424
Goranson, S. 686 Jones, B. W. 40, 490, 1359 Lo Cascio, E. 676
Grabbe, L. L. 686, 737, 740, 901, 1002, Jones, C. P. 1394 Long, T. 951
1014, p.84, p.89 n.l Jossa, G. 342, 724 Lönnquist, K. 1054, 1103, 1105, 1394
Graetz, H. 572 Kajanto, I 106, 320, 718, 1054, 1377, Luce, T. J. 1828
Gray, R. 678, 978, 982, 1641, p.84 n.a 1396, 1494, 1525, 1546, 1723, 1730, Lüdemann, G. 2826
Green, P. 728 1767, 1872, 2114, 3213, 3272, 3671 Luther, H. 1134, 1394, 3367, 3375,
Griffin, M. T. 1563, 1576, 1577, 1682 Kamm, A. 2283 3724
Griffith, R. D. 1201 Kasher, A. 264, 1679, 1682, 1820, Luttwak, E. N. p.268 n.j
Gruen, E. S. 902, 2511, 2980, 2981 2980 Maclean, J. K. B. 963
Grünenfelder, R. 714, 758 Kashtan, N. 408 Mader, G. 1409, 2176, 3375
Grünewald, T. 342, 788 Kennard, J. S. 341 Magie, D. 2300
Habicht, C. 1240 Kennedy, D. L. 2825 Magness, J. 749, 915, p.89 n.l
Habinek, T. N. 342 Keppie, L. 78, 79, 243, 320, 391, 407, Makhouly, N. 408
Hachlili, R. 341, 450, 1499, 1500, 1521, 1058 Malitz, J. 94, 3349
1842, 2631, 2635, 2699 Kessler, D. 2423 Mann, J. C. p.268 n.j
Hadas-Lebel, M. 290, 457 Khouri, R. G. 2825 Marcus-Wikgren 368
Hadot, P. 793 Kienast, D. 1273 Mare, W. H. 1102
Hall, L. J. 411 Kindler, A. 1046 Marrou, H. I. 129, 3555
Hamrick, E. W. 1364 Kisa, A. 1190 Marsden, E. W. 2657, 3284, 3285, 3322,
Hands, A. R. 37 Klein, J. 1279 3323
Hannah, R. 1197, 1826 Kloner, A. 1364 Martín-Bueno, M. 2825
Rasp, H. 731 Kloppenborg, J. S. 1679, 1682, 1698, Martin Nagy, R. 340
Hanson, J. S. 340, 342, 679, 1597 2816 Martínez, G. 773
Hanson, K. C. 1102 Koch, D-A. 2794 Massey, M. 252
Hanson, V. D. 284 Kohler, K. 686, p.93 n.l Mason, H. J. 22, 33, 78, 79, 98, 107,
index of modern authors 521
136, 1146, 1355, 1705, 2297, 3212, Olive, J. 1044 Rowe, C. 2627
3358 Oliver, J. H. 50 Royo, M. 491
Mason, S. 26, 50, 134, 149, 158, 176, Oost, S. I. 1547 Rubincam, C. 1419
232, 353, 387, 511, 517, 519, 603, Oppenheim, A. L. 679 Ruffini, G. 1983, 2980
607, 671, 728, 731, 733, 736. 738, Ottone, G. 700 Runesson, A. 1829
799, 845, 893, 939, 947, 987, 1002, Overman, J. A. 1044, 2794 Runnalls, D. R. 2169, 2178, 2188, 2235,
1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1012, Pappano, A. E. 607 2271, 2458, 2513, 2533, p.265 n.a
1039, 1046, 1054, 1060, 1070, 1147, Paret, H. 731 Russell, D. A. 660
1176, 1231, 1285, 1304, 1316, 1367, Parker, H. M. D. 2104, 2113, 2313, Sacks, K. S. 966
1604, 1641, 1647, 1802, 2085, 2355, 2324, 2328, 2335, 2374, 2383, 2392, Saddington, B. 1396
2472, 2583, 2794, 2815, 3086, 3363, 2427, 2453, 3029, 3069, 3212, 3236, Safrai, Z. 1258
p.268 n.m p.267 n.f Saldarini, A. J. 736, 737, 1002, 1014
Mattern, S. P. 953, 2366, 2367, 2374, Parker, R. 105 Saller, R. P. 653, 2422, 2423, 2427,
2391, 2796, p.268 n.j Parkin, T. G. 749, 921 2447
Mattingly, D. J. 662, 2423 Pastor, J. 727, 1258 Salmeri, G. 2128
Matthews, S. 3358 Pater, W. A. D. 951 Sanders, E. P. 12, 147, 1002, 1014,
Matthews, T. 758 Patrich, J. 108 2085, p.84 n.a
Matyszak, P. 2998 Paul, G. M. 2300, 2359, 2423, 2432, Saulnier, C. 2357, p.267 n.f, p.267 n.g,
Mayer-Schärtel, B. 758 2447, p. 267 n.g p.268 n.l
Mazar, A. 1102, 1103 Pearson, L. 1828 Sawicki, M. 340
McCollough, C. T. 340 Penwill, J. 22 Schäfer, P. 902, 1096
McCray, P. 1205 Pelletier, A. 1, 22, 46, 49, 97, 99, 144, Schalit, A. 33, 572, 594, 707, 3086,
McGing, B. C. 1105, 1115 189, 223, 259, 287, 362, 365, 368, 3167, 3396
McEleney, N. J. 2794 572, 594, 640, 642, 656, 671, 707, Schechter, S. 1010, 2913
McKechnie, P. 1810 711, 1306, 1351, 1673, 1676, 1776, Schiffman, L. 1014
McLaren, J. S. 147, 2085, 3337 1789, 1917, 1945, 2051, 2062, 2319, Schmitt, G. 1364
McNicoll, A. 2826 2623, 2815, 2861, 2989, 3177, 3215, Schneider, G. 2395
Meier, J. P. 1446 3228, 3387, 3396, 3608, 3630, 3707, Schofield, M. 2627
Meshorer, Y. 728, 1046, 1058, 1394, 3750, 3805, 3824 Schottroff, W. 1360
3123, 3449, 3551 Pelling, C. 1828, p. 266 n.b Schröder, B. 50, 1070
Meyer, R. 731 Pflaum, H. G. 107, 721 Schürer, E. 572, p.93
Meyers, C. L.. 3440 Plass, P. 1094 Schürer-Vermes 304, 306, 318, 341,
Meyers, E. M. 340, 423, 1240, 3123, Pollard, N. 114, 2392 362, 560, 615, 718, 720, 1046, 1128,
3440 Porath, Y. 1077 1394, 1546, 1723, 1730, 1826, 2568,
Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer, E. 1058, 1059, Price, J. J. 187, 342, 1058, 1757, 1826, 2571, 2572, 2671, 3167, 3575, 3597,
1064, 1454 1828, 2627, 2648, 2655, 2782, 2783, p.89 n.l
Millar, F. 40, 107, 607, 653, 721, 1058, 3337, 3340, 3375, 3730, 3732, 3805 Schwartz, D. R. 134, 326, 621, 1054,
1240 Price, S. R. F. 1240, 1241, 2620 1125, 1128, 1141, 1151, 1152, 1258,
Millar, F. G. B. 114, 411, 362, 676, Pucci ben Zeev, M. 33, 304, 727, 1356, 1289, 1274, 1521, 2937
3070, 3353 2998 Schwartz, J. 1511, 3398, 3400
Miller, J. F. 491 Pummer, R. 1679 Schwartz, S. 526
Milns, R. 1359 Raban, A. 108, 1072 Scramuzza, V. M. 1272
Mitchell, S. 2300, 2307, 2313, 2316, Rabinowitz, D. 340 Seager 1039, 2233
2318 Rajak, T. 41, 740, 1409, 1829, p.84 Sebesta, J. L. 12, 777
Modrzejewski, J. M. 2980 n.a, p.265 n.a, p.266 n.c, p. 266 n.e, Segal, A. F. 2794
Moehring, H. R. 704, 1356 p.268 n.k Sekeles, E. 463, 1972
Momigliano, A. 1061, 2127, 2351 Rankin, H. D. 2339 Severy, B. A. 491
Mommsen, T. 33, 2236, 2292, 2300, Rapoport, S. J. L. 374 Shahar, Y. 1190, 1828, 2254
2306, 2309, 2382, 2423 Rawson, B. 706 Shanks, H. 2142
Moore, G. F. 734, 951 Reed, J. L. 340 Shatzman, I. 78, 320, 718, 727, 1150
Moreland, P. 252 Reinach, T. 572, 707, 1006, 3630 Shaw, B. D. 40, 342, 788, 1251, 1597
Munn, M. 2254, 2417 Rey-Coquais, E. 3064, 3066, 3067 Sheedy, K. A. 2826
Murray, M. 1679 Richardson, P. 484, 108, 727, 1046, Sherk, E. T. 1378, 2300, 2311, 2315,
Myres, J. N. L. 2386, 2387, 2393 1829 3119
Nelson, M. 1044 Rickman, G. 2423 Sherman, N. 467
Netzer, E. 291, 356, 1072 Ritmeyer, L. and K. 1102, 2148 Sherwin-White, A. N. 514, 718, 722
Neubauer, A. D. 395 Ritterling, E. 2301, 2328, p.267 n.f Shipley, G. 2251
Neuburg, F. 1190, 1205 Rives, J. 1060, 2375, 2377 Shotter, D. 1127, 1135, 2386, 2392,
Neusner, J. 1002, 2511, p.95 Rivkin, E. 1002 2393
Nicolson, F. W. 901 Roller, D. W. 1077, 2306 Shutt, R. J. H. 3367
Niese, B. 49, 223, 333, 362, 572, 903, Roller, M. B. 37, 699, 747 Siegert, F. 2794
1055, 1151, 1165, 1184, 1442, 1673, Romm, J. S. 953, 2371, 2420 Sievers, J. 947, 1824, 2805
1676, 1945, 2296, 2624, 2861, 2902, Rood, T. 1828 Sly, D. 1682
3215, 3239, 3329, 3623, 3824 Rose, C. B. 2306 Simonetti, M. 32, 275, 423, 516, 579,
Nock, A. D. 733 Rostovtzeff, M. I. 673, 2306, 2345, 607, 668
North, J. 2620 2348, 2434 Smallwood, E. M. 32, 33, 109, 236,
Noy, D. 2984, 3184, 3785 Roth, J. 108, 389, 1401, 3508 341, 419, 482, 560, 671, 718, 1178,
Oates, W. J. 2447 Rothenberg, B. 2361
522 index of modern authors
1179, 1240, 1242, 1258, 1396 851, 864, 903, 918, 959, 1006, 1055, Wardle, D. 1147
Smith, M. 1604, 2754, p.88, p.89, p.93 1151, 1184, 1306, 1351, 1741, 1975, Warren, J. 926, p.86
Smith, R. H. 2826 1990, 2062, 2296, 2319, 2327, 2623, Wassèn, C. 1014
Smyth, H. W. 782, 1815, 2166, 2775 2745, 2815, 2861, 2896, 2902, 2952, Watts, C. M. 2825
Solin, H. 92, 640, 3185, 3785 2989, 3177, 3215, 3228, 3239, 3284, Watts, D. J. 2825
Sordi, M. 1272 3329, 3367, 3387, 3396, 3512, 3630, Watson, G. R. 306, 320, 390, 1276,
Sperber, D. 1258 3707, 3765, 3805, 3824 1474, 1873, 1925
Starr, C. G. 2310 Thoma, C. 1397 Webster, G. 78, 316 , 320, 321, 390,
Stefanoudaki, E. 772 Tomei, M. A. 491 407, 1056, 1057, 1089, 1276, 1281,
Stemberger, G. 736, 737, 740, 1002, Toynbee, J. M. C. 7 2113, 2386, 2392, 2393, 3069, 3155
1014 Townend, G. B. 3119 Weeber, K-W. 759
Stern, M. 395, p.93 n.l, p.266 n.e Treggiari, S. 706 Weiss. A. 252
Stern, S. 1826 Trowbridge, M. L. 1205 Welch, F. 627
Stettner, W. 951 Turner, E. W. 1378 West, M. L. 1201, 2034
Stieglitz, R. R. 108 Tzaferis, V 463 Wheeler, E. F. 114
Strange, J. F. 3440 Tyree, E. L. 772 Whiston, W. 1358, 2319, 2815, 3228,
Strickert, F. 1046 Urman, D. 1829 3396
Stuart Jones, H. 2980 Uscatescu, A. 2825 Whittaker, C. R. p.268 n.j
Sutherland, C. H. V. 2360 van Henten, J. W. 368 Winterbottom, M. 660
Swain, S. 20, 134, 2156, 2199, 2201, VanderKam, J. C. 686, 901, p.84 n.a, Wolfson, H. A. 2980, 2990
2217, 2354, p.266 n.l p.93 n.n Woodman, A. J. p.265
Syme, R. 421, 676, 1280, 3119 Vann, R. L. 108 Williams, D. S. p.90
Syon, D. 3444 Vermes, G. (see also “Schürer- Wiseman, T. P. 1039, 1147, 1175, 1176,
Tabor, J. D. 915 Vermes”) 686, 740, 749, 773, p.84 1274, 1280, 1281, 1282
Tait, H. 1190, 1205 n.a, p.93 n.l, p.95 n.n Yadin, Y. p.93 n.n
Tatton-Brown, V. 1205 Vincent, L.H. 388 Yeivin, Z. 772
Taylor, J. 686 Vitucci, G. 73, 144, 223, 421, 711, 804, Zanker, P. 490
Taylor, J. E. p.93 n.l p.267 n.g Zayadine, F. 2825
Tcherikover, V. 2980, 2990 Vogel, M. 2655 Zeitlin, S. 1097, 1604, 2754, 2790
Temin, P. 2423 Vose, R. H. 1190, 1205 Zias, J. 463, 915, 1972
Thackeray, H. St. J. 73, 97, 99, 116, Wacholder, B. Z. 94, Ziolkowski, A. 437, 3047, 3463
141, 144, 189, 212, 287, 307, 323, Walbank, F. W. 728, 1828, 2258
333, 362, 365. 368, 572, 642, 656, Walker, C. 2397