207. not shutting yourself up like a woman who never stirs outside her quarters Philo writes similarly in Flaccus 89 respecting the Alexandrian Jewish community: \u201ctheir women kept in seclusion, never even approaching the outer doors, and their maidens confined to the inner chambers, who for modesty\u2019s sake avoided the sight of men,\u201d and cf. also Spec. Laws 3.169\u201371. Though Philo\u2019s descriptions of cloistered women may perhaps have reflected a characteristic of traditional Greek society, they hardly indicate the social reality either in the contemporary Roman world, or in traditional Jewish life in Judea as portrayed in Scripture and in Rabbinic sources.
\nto seek a more weatherproof mode of life This is paralleled in Josephus, Ant. 3.244, which similarly states that \u201cMoses bids each family to fix up tents, apprehensive of the cold and as a protection against the year\u2019s inclemency.\u201d This explanation is not found either in the Bible or in Rabbinic sources, and raises some unanswered questions. Perhaps it echoes a facet of the holidays of the seventh month (Tishre) with which we are no longer familiar. An example of such a possible circumstance is hinted at in my comment to Spec. Laws 2.196: M. Ta\u2019an. 4:8 relates the custom for maidens to dance in the vineyards on the Day of Atonement (as on the 15th of Av)\u2014but were it not for this isolated mention, we would never have suspected that such a custom existed.
\nAnother reason This is the same as that given in Lev. 23:42\u201343.
\n209. odes and words of praise Colson: \u201csongs.\u201d I demonstrate in my \u201cPsalms, Hymns, Songs and Tehillim\u201d (still in manuscript) that these terms were not understood to be synonyms either in Philo or elsewhere.
\n210. the same reason as was given when we were speaking of the season of spring See Spec. Laws 2.155. Passover and Tabernacles each come at an Equinox (March and September), adjusted of course to the vagaries of the lunar Hebrew calendar. At least until modern times, the added light at this time of year would have been an important practical consideration.
\n211. \u201cclosing\u201d Philo uses the LXX\u2019s term Exodion (MT Atzeret; NJPS: \u201csolemn gathering\u201d; OJPS and KJV: \u201csolemn assembly\u201d) for the eighth day, the day that follows the seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles mentioned in Lev. 23:36 and Num. 29:35. This Greek word also meant the \u201cexit\u201d or \u201cfinale\u201d of a drama. Hence it is fitting as the finale of the festival, and even more so as the completion of the entire festival period. And as Philo has also noted, this is not the completion of the Feast of Tabernacles alone, but of the entire round of the annual series of festivals. The word atzeret is also used for the seventh and last day of Passover (where it is not an extra day): in Deut. 16:8, the LXX again renders Exodion for MT Atzeret. In later times, the eighth day of assembly acquired the additional dimension of a celebration of the conclusion of the annual Torah reading cycle; today, this celebration is called Shemini Atzeret (lit., \u201ceighth assembly\u201d).
\n212. the number eight \u2026 marking where we pass from the unsubstantial and \u2026 the category of the conceptual As he so often does, here too Philo uses \u201cnumber\u201d in its philosophic dimension.
\n214. the children of that number which stands as a mother This again recalls the Rabbinic categorization of the commandments as avot v\u2019toledot (fathers and offspring), although Philo\u2019s simile is \u201cmothers and children.\u201d Philo explains here why all the holidays as well as the miscellaneous injunctions that have \u201cseven\u201d as a constituent element have been included under the rubric of the Fourth Commandment, which commands the people to observe the seventh day (Shabbat)\u2014and this closes the circle that began in Spec. Laws 2.39. As a final comment on this section: I have ended 214 at this point because the manuscript tradition of the continuation of its text is both deficient and problematic.
\n215\u201322 Philo closes his review of the feasts with an appendix that he calls \u201cThe Basket Ceremony\u201d\u2014the bringing of the firstfruits (bikkurim), at the same time noting that \u201cit has not the prestige and standing of a feast\u201d (215). Note similarly that Mishnah Bikkurim, which is devoted to this, is placed in the first division of the Mishnah: Zera\u2019im (Seeds), rather than in the second division: Mo\u2019ed (Set Feasts). Rabbinic tradition identifies the firstfruits that are to be brought as those of the seven species listed in Deut. 8:8, with which God blessed the Land of Israel: \u201ca land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and [date] honey.\u201d The special ceremonies for the firstfruits of the \u201cbarley sheaf,\u201d that occur, as we have seen, on the second day of Passover, and also that for the \u201cwheat\u201d that is celebrated on Pentecost, have been recounted above (see the comment on 162 and comments on 175, is of barley and wheat holds the first place).
\n215. called the Basket See Deut. 26:1\u201311; Exod. 23:19; 34:26. In Dreams 2.272, Philo allegorizes the passage.
\n216. it has a festal character and nearly approaches \u2026 a general ceremony M. Bik. 3 contains a vivid description of the ascent from the villages to Jerusalem, complete with musical accompaniment. But although villagers joined together to go up to Jerusalem with their firstfruits, as is noted immediately below in Spec. Laws 2.220\u201321, the ceremony was not celebrated by the entire nation at one time, as were the festivals proper, but rather, was celebrated as the fruits in different places ripened.
\nevery person who possesses farms or landed estates Compare M. Bik. 1:1\u20132, where it is stated that the firstfruits must come from land owned by the person who brings them.
\nbaskets In Deut. 26:2, 4, the word \u201cbasket\u201d translates MT tenne, LXX kartallos Philo has kartalos (with a single letter). This word appears in Philo only here and in Dreams 2.272. The word is a technical term for a basket with a pointed bottom.
\nhe recites this beautiful and admirable canticle What follows in Spec. Laws 2.217\u201319 is a paraphrase of Deut. 26:5\u201310. This passage in Deuteronomy is widely familiar, because from very ancient times it has been the core text of the Passover haggadah, where it is first recited verbatim and then liberally interspersed with midrashic comments (see M. Pes. 10:4). The injunction to recite this passage when the firstfruits are offered on the altar is found in M. Bik. 3:7, and M. Sot. 7:2 states that the passage must be read in Hebrew. In line with M. Bik. 3:6\u20137, Philo states that when necessary, the priest who receives it helps the one making the offering, by reciting the passage for him. According to a (perhaps later) development mentioned in the Mishnah, in order not to shame those who did not know the canticle, it became the standard custom for the priest to recite it for everyone.
\n217. The founders of our race abandoned Syria Deuteronomy 26:5 MT reads: Arami oved avi (literally translates as \u201cmy father was a wandering Aramean\u201d; OJPS. NJPS reads: \u201cmy father was a fugitive Aramean\u201d). As usual, Philo follows the rendition of the LXX, which has understood the subject of the verse to be Jacob who \u201cabandoned Syria.\u201d However, the midrashic tradition reflected in the Passover haggadah has understood the verse as a reference to Laban when he pursued Jacob in order to try to destroy him. It has rendered it as \u201can Aramean [Laban] tried to do away with my forefather\u201d by transposing the word oved from an adjective referring to the wandering Aramean Jacob, to a verb whose subject is Laban. Even so, the medieval commentator Ibn Ezra points out that the simple meaning of the text is \u201cMy father was a wandering Aramean.\u201d
\n218. signs and wonders and portents and all the other marvels that were wrought at that time This is a paraphrase of Deut. 26:8 that is found in the Passover haggadah (see comment on Spec. Laws 2.216, he recites this beautiful and admirable canticle).
\n219. a sample offering Better: the firstfruits. Colson has \u201ca sample offering,\u201d but since the context is the bringing of firstfruits, I have preferred this connotation, which is also found in the standard Greek lexicon, Liddel & Scott.
\n220. from early summer to late autumn This time frame is at one with M. Bik. 1.6: \u201cA man may bring the Firstfruits \u2026 from Pentecost [i.e., the Feast of Weeks, which occurs in June] until the Feast [of Tabernacles, in September\u2013October].\u201d
\n221. time when this sample of fruits is due Better: \u201ctime when the firstfruits are due.\u201d
\n222. for the use of the priests This is a fairly close paraphrase of Deut. 18:1\u20135, which states: \u201cThe levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no territorial portion with Israel \u2026 You shall also give him the firstfruits of your new grain and wine and oil \u2026 For the LORD your God has chosen him and his descendants, out of all your tribes, to be in attendance for service in the name of the LORD for all time.\u201d
\n223. completed the discussion of the number seven This is the transition to the Fifth Commandment\u2014to honor one\u2019s parents.
\n3.1. when my constant companions were divine themes and verities Gk. logois kai dogmasin, a word combination idiosyncratic to Philo, who uses it to refer to biblical laws and traditional ordinances.
\nof reputation or of wealth or bodily comforts Philo considers these to be the major values of his contemporary society\u2014a view that might just as easily pertain today.
\n3. the ocean of civil cares Though not exactly the same, this calls to mind the midrash to Num. 11:26\u201329 found in B. Sanh. 17a, respecting the unauthorized prophesying of Eldad and Medad. The Talmud asks, \u201cHow was Moses to \u2018forbid them\u2019 [to continue to prophesy, as Joshua suggested]? He [Joshua] said to him: Lay upon them public cares, and they will cease [prophesying] of themselves.\u201d (See also Tosafot on B. Sanh. 17a).
\n4. the soul\u2019s eyes In modern English we would say \u201cthe mind\u2019s eye.\u201d
\n5. get me wings Echoes Plato\u2019s Phaedr. 246d\u2013249d. Philo uses this Platonic imagery in several places.
\n6. sacred interpretations of the Torah This is my rendition. Colson reads: \u201csacred messages of Moses.\u201d Philo is informing his readers that he is using traditional material, while expounding it in a manner that will bring it closer to the understanding of people in general.
\nPeer Better: to look carefully. Gk.: diakuptein.
\nand unfold and reveal what is not known to the multitude Better: to unfold and elucidate what is not familiar to the multitude. Cf. Philo, Vita 78.
\n7\u201311 What follows is based primarily upon Lev. 18, which is the Torah reading portion in the synagogue in the afternoon service of the Day of Atonement.
\n7. I will again endeavour to fit the special laws into each of the heads Philo is reminding the reader that the taxonomy\u2014the fitting of the particular laws under specific rubrics of the Decalogue\u2014is his own contribution.
\n8. The first commandment in the second table Whereas the MT discusses the prohibition against murder first, and then that of adultery, Philo follows the order used by the LXX, both in Exodus and in Deuteronomy (at least in Rahlfs edition); he does the same in Decalogue 121\u201331.
\npleasure is a mighty force Adultery is defined by Philo as an aspect of pleasure, which\u2014unlike in Rabbinic thought, where pleasure is considered something positive\u2014is disparaged by Philo. In what follows, the appetites for food and for sex are considered pleasurable appetites that need to be reigned in.
\n9. even natural pleasure is often greatly to blame Philo rejects immoderation in the satisfaction of one\u2019s carnal desires for food and for sexual satisfaction, even in the realm of the permitted; that is, even when the foods themselves are of the permitted kind, and the sexual intercourse is performed with one\u2019s own spouse.
\n10. the blame in most of these cases rests less with the soul than with the body Philo differentiates between failing to control voraciousness respecting what are otherwise legitimate carnal desires, on the one hand, and the serious transgressions, on the other. The first is the failure to rein in the calls of the flesh, while the latter is an incurable disease of the soul.
\n11. Here it is the soul which is incurably diseased This refers to those who commit adultery. In Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22, adultery is punishable by death. Philo justifies this on the grounds that adulterers are a danger to society.
\n12\u201331 The prohibitions discussed in these sections appear in the order found in Lev. 18 (though some of them are also found in Lev. 20 and Deut. 22). However, Philo adds to them the prohibition against taking non-Jewish wives (cf. Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3) as well as the prohibition against remarrying one\u2019s divorced wife if she has in the interim married someone else (Deut. 24:4).
\n12. abstinence \u2026 also from widows Philo often uses the word \u201cwidow\u201d to include all women who have been married but are no longer so, for whatever reason, as Colson has pointed out in his comment here. Both here and in Spec. Laws 3.30 this connotation of the word \u201cwidow\u201d is evident from the context.
\nin cases where the union is forbidden Colson adds here the words, \u201cby the moral law,\u201d but this is hardly justified. The Gk. themis means \u201cthat which is laid down or established.\u201d Philo may also have had in mind the prohibition against marrying a divorced woman on the part of those of priestly lineage.
\n13. the Persian custom In the Hellenistic world, it was believed that incestuous relationships were customary with the Persians. Philo\u2019s long digression here (13\u201325), on the customs of the Persians, Greeks, and Egyptians, reflects his rejection of those norms that are contrary to the Jewish tradition.
\n14. unholiness Better: gross sacrilege. Both here and at the beginning of the next section, the translation \u201cgross sacrilege\u201d for the Gk. anosiourghma is more appropriate than Colson\u2019s (\u201ca very grave offense against holy living\u201d; Colson renders this word the same way in Spec. Laws 1.319).
\n15. among the Greeks \u2026 Oedipus the son of La\u00efus Philo did not consider it necessary to do more than allude to this in illustration of the dire consequences of such an act. He took it for granted that the Gk. paideia (education) of his readers would automatically fill in the details.
\n16\u201318. For a succession of wars civil and foreign Colson notes here that the reference is not only to the war of the Seven against Thebes, caused by the rivalry of the two sons of Oedipus, but also to the later wars of the Epigoni (the sons of the first set of chieftains), which might be regarded as indirectly caused by the curse of Oedipus, and in which according to legend, Thebes was sacked (Cf. Diodorus 4.66).
\n19. ill-matched matings of sons with mothers These \u201cill-matched matings\u201d presumably included also the converse: daughters with fathers.
\njustice Gk.: Dike. In Greek tradition, Dike was the goddess of justice. The word is here used metaphorically as the personification of the concept \u201cJustice,\u201d or perhaps better, \u201cJudgment.\u201d
\n20. our law \u2026 has not even permitted the son of a first marriage to marry his stepmother after the death of his father Compare Lev. 18:8, regarding which, in the same spirit, Rashi adds: \u201cincluding after his death.\u201d Might I point out that a father\u2019s second wife might well be of the same age as the son of a first wife.
\nhowever different are the feelings called up by the two words The potentially problematic nature of the stepmother\u2019s role is clearly not new.
\n22. prohibition against espousing a sister The next verse in Leviticus (18:9; cf. also Lev. 20:17) contains the prohibition against the taking of one\u2019s half sister, and it is understood that this applies all the more so respecting the full sister.
\nNow Solon the lawgiver of the Athenians In ancient Greece, marriage with half sisters (from different mothers) is mentioned in many sources. However, Plato\u2019s Leg. 838a\u2013b states not only that it was unlawful, but also that most people shrank from it.
\n23. the lawgiver of the Egyptians \u2026 gave full liberty to marry sisters of every degree Diodorus (90\u201321 BCE) wrote that the practice is modeled on the marriage of the god and goddess Isis and Osiris (Library 1.27); Sextus Empiricus (who flourished in the 2nd\u20133rd centuries CE) wrote that, \u201cthe [Persian] Magi marry their mothers, and the Egyptians take sisters in marriage\u201d (Pyr. 3.305) and Goodenough cites a papyrus from a later date containing an invitation issued by a mother for the marriage of a brother and sister.
\n25. mankind Colson: \u201cmen with men.\u201d
\nintermarriages with outsiders So Colson, the translation should be \u201cmarriages with those not related,\u201d because this is the connotation of the Gk. othneious. See also the comment on Spec. Laws 3.29.
\n26. he prohibits many other unions As Colson has noted in his comment on this section, all these degrees of relationship are mentioned in Lev. 18:10\u201316, except for the prohibition included by Philo against marriage with the maternal uncle\u2019s wife (and while it is intimated in Lev. 20:20 MT, it is not explicitly stated there either and is not found in the LXX translation of the verse). However, Lev. 18:10\u201316 differentiates between \u201can aunt\u201d and a \u201cnear kinswoman,\u201d a distinction that is not preserved in either our or Philo\u2019s thought patterns.
\nnor with one who has been wife to \u2026 brother For the prohibition against taking the wife of a brother, see Lev. 18:16, but neither here nor in the next section (Spec. Laws 3.27) does Philo mention the exception to this, namely, the positive injunction in Deut. 25:5\u201310 to enter into a Levirate marriage (yibbum) with the childless widow of a brother, \u201cto raise up seed to the brother\u201d (Deut. 25:6). Philo probably avoids its mention here because it is out of the context of Lev. 18, but his treatment of the Tamar incident (Gen. 38:6\u201311) in Virtues 222 demonstrates that he is aware of this injunction.
\n27. he does not allow the same man to marry two sisters either at the same or at different times This too is found in the same biblical pericope, in Lev. 18:18. Rabbinic halakhah understood Lev. 18:18 as forbidding the taking of two sisters in marriage as long as one of them was still alive, even if the man had divorced the other. Philo\u2019s statement is in agreement with this.
\n29\u201331 Unlike the proscriptions discussed above, the next two are not based on Lev. 18. Philo seems to have taken advantage of the context of forbidden relationships in Lev. 18 to inveigh against intermarriage, in Spec. Laws 3.29, and against the return of a divorced woman to her original husband if she has been married to another in the interim, in 30\u201331 (not included in the excerpts. Cf. Deut. 24:1\u20134). Apparently both of these phenomena were live issues in his day. The prohibition against marrying women from foreign nations is an associational continuation to Spec. Laws 3.24\u201326, which proscribed marriage with blood relatives and praised the widening of the family circle. The present section circumscribes this widening, excluding those who do not belong to the Jewish people. Note the introductory words \u201cBut also\u201d in 29, which connect the qualification contained in it with the preceding sections.
\n29. But also, he says, do not enter into the partnership of marriage with a member of a foreign nation This section is not connected with Lev. 18, which has been the major frame of reference for the pericope as a whole. Instead, it reflects the prohibitions in Exod. 34:15\u201316 and Deut. 7:3\u20134 against joining in wedlock with the seven nations that the Israelites found in Canaan. Philo is at one with Jubilees (30:10\u201311) and the Mishnah (Sanh. 9:6; Kid. 11:12) in understanding this prohibition to refer to all Gentiles. Here the Gk. for \u201cforeigner\u201d is allo-ethnos (one from a \u201cforeign nation\u201d) and not, as in Spec. Laws 3.25, othneious (a non-relative).
\n32\u201336 Philo now resumes his interpretation of Lev. 18 and continues in the order of Scripture to the end of Spec. Laws 3.53. The primary message of 32\u201336 is that the purpose of sex is procreation, and should be performed in conditions that are optimally conducive to the birth of children. This approach is also clearly stated elsewhere in his writings, e.g., in Joseph 43: \u201cThe end we seek in wedlock is not pleasure but the begetting of lawful children,\u201d and see also Quod Det. 102, and Moses 1.28.
\n32\u201333 In these sections Philo presents the main aspect of the laws of family purity (niddah), the point of departure being Lev. 18:19, which forbids a husband to have sexual relations with his wife during the period of her menstrual flow. Philo does not enter into more detail, except to state that the man must not touch his wife during this period. He explains the natural logic of the injunction on the premise that sex is for procreation (see similarly, e.g., Joseph 43, Moses 1.28).
\nthe generative seeds should not be wasted fruitlessly Philo\u2019s explanation recognizes the cyclic nature of women\u2019s fertility, and the need for the man to control himself lest his seed become inundated by the woman\u2019s discharges.
\n33. the seminal nerve-forces \u2026 mold \u2026 each part both of body and soul According to the accepted conceptualization in the ancient world, evident in Philo\u2019s writing as well as that of some of the Sages, the womb was no more than the vessel in which all aspects of the child are molded from the male seed. The woman does not contribute to this process. Yet one also finds the recommendation in Rabbinic tradition that before marrying a girl, one would be well advised to examine her brothers, because most children are similar in character to the mother\u2019s brothers. This of course implies genetic input on the part of the woman as well.
\n34. They too must be branded with reproach, who plough the hard and stony land There is no biblical authority for the prohibition against wedding a barren woman, nor does Rabbinic authority prohibit it, provided that the man already has children. The view of the Sages on this subject is succinctly summarized in M. Yev. 6:6 (with many additional details in the talmudic discussion of this topic).
\ndestroy Colson suggests the alternative: \u201cwaste.\u201d
\n35. Those who marry maidens in ignorance, at the time, of their capacity or incapacity for successful motherhood Philo\u2019s expression of his understanding of a barren couple, and his condoning of their remaining together, may or may not reflect personal experience. In any event, in his writings there is no mention of children in a manner that might reflect parenthood.
\n36. those who sue for marriage with women whose sterility has already been proved \u2026 do but copulate like pigs or goats This is very strong wording, far more severe than any used in this context in Rabbinic tradition, where\u2014as we have already noted (see comment on Spec. Laws 3.9; also, the comment on 8, pleasure is a mighty force)\u2014sex for pleasure is explicitly permitted.
\nthose persons who make an art of quenching the life of the seed as it drops This appears to be a reference to birth control. Philo looked upon procreation not only as a Divine commandment to the Jewish people, but as an expression of God\u2019s love for all humankind, and even for all of his creation. This is reflected in the words Philo has just chosen in the preceding sentence, to summarize the entire subject: \u201cGod in His love both for mankind and all that lives, spares no care to effect the preservation and permanence of every race [emphasis mine].\u201d
\n59. he should not accept idle hearing Reflects Exod. 23:1 LXX (MT OJPS: \u201cThou shalt not utter a false report\u201d). Cf. Targum Onkelos: shema desheker. Under this prohibition Philo includes a prohibition against the taking of sophistic harangues into consideration, as well as popular inventions, mythical and other, on the part of the plaintiff in court.
\n60. the phrase \u201cnot accept idle hearing\u201d has another signification Philo adds what is of particular relevance to the subject at hand: not to accept hearsay evidence, because the recounting of what one has seen is of necessity an interpretation, and not the bare facts.
\nBut ears, as one of the ancients has aptly said, are less trustworthy than eyes This is an almost verbatim quotation from Herodotus (Hist. 1.8); Polybius (History 12.27) ascribes something very similar to Heraclitus. The Mishnah, basing itself on Scripture (Deut. 17:6), takes this to be axiomatic: in referring to monetary cases, it states in Sanh. 3:6 that \u201che must be able to say, \u2018In our presence he acknowledged to the other that he owed him 200 zuz.\u2019 \u201d And respecting capital cases, the relevant section (Sanh. 4:5) begins, \u201cHow did they admonish the witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them [saying], \u2018Perchance you will say what is but supposition or hearsay or at second hand, or \u201cWe heard it from a man who was trustworthy.\u201d \u2019 \u201d
\n61. Grecian legislators \u2026 copied from the most sacred tables of Moses The assumption that the Greeks and other ancients learned from Moses is not confined to Philo.
\n62. for gifts, says the law, blind the eyes See Exod. 23:8: \u201cDo not take bribes, for bribes blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right.\u201d And see the comment on Spec. Laws 4.64.
\n63. to receive them to do justice shows a half depravity This echoes Plato (Resp. 352c). Rabbinic literature stresses that it is equally forbidden to take a bribe even in order to give a just verdict\u2014see, for example, Rashi to Exod. 23:8: \u201c\u2026 even to give a righteous judgment, and how much more so to judge unfairly, for this has already been stated [in Deut. 16:19], \u2018You shall not judge unfairly\u2019.\u201d
\n64. for two things are demanded from the good judge, a verdict absolutely according to law and a refusal to be bribed Philo belabors this point at quite some length. Although he has followed Plato in principle, like the Rabbinic sources, he stresses the prohibition against bribery under any circumstances.
\n65. and vice Better: which vice.
\n66. pursue justice justly Echoes Deut. 16:19\u201320: \u201cyou shall not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning \u2026 Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive.\u201d Philo also references this text in Cherubim 15 and Worse 18, but gives it a different connotation in those passages. Rabbinic sources consider Deut. 16:19 to be sufficient for the prohibition against receiving bribes. Note, however, M. Pe\u2019ah 8:9: \u201cSo, too, is it with a judge that judges a judgment according to its truth [cf. Deut. 16:20]. And any judge that takes a bribe and perverts judgment shall not die in old age before his eyes wax dim, as it is written, \u2026 \u2018for a gift blindeth them that have sight\u2019 [Exod. 23:8].\u201d
\n67. Thus we have heard of a person \u2026 repaying it with a view to ensnare While this statement is not entirely relevant here, it is an exceedingly appropriate association for one whose family was engaged in large scale finance. From the way he expresses himself, both here and elsewhere, Philo must have felt very strongly on the matter, for he severely criticizes this practice in several places. While in Decalogue 172 it is only intimated, the allusion is clear in Unchangeable 101, Planting 101\u20133, and Cherubim 14, which latter section also quotes, as here, Deut. 16:20.
\n68. falsehood \u2026 the work of nurses and mothers This reflects Philo\u2019s attitude toward womankind in general.
\n69. And what has life to show so excellent as truth Philo would have every reason to expect that a goodly proportion of his readers had made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. For, as we know from the descriptions of Josephus, as well as from Rabbinic tradition, myriads came to Jerusalem from the Diaspora during the festivals. And of course anyone who made even a single pilgrimage to Jerusalem during one of the three festivals would have made a point to see the high priest dressed in the holy vestments.
\nthe man of perfect wisdom A reference to Moses.
\nset as a monument on the robe of the high priest \u2026 And beside truth he set \u2026 \u201cclear showing\u201d For the biblical description of the high priest\u2019s garments, see Exod. 28:2\u201343. Philo here alludes to the high priest\u2019s breastplate, upon which were set the Urim and Thummim (see Exod. 28:30: \u201cInside the breastpiece of decision you shall place the Urim and Thummim\u201d). The NJPS translation notes that the meaning of these words is unclear but that they seem to form a kind of oracle; cf. Num. 27:21. By implicitly translating \u201cUrim\u201d as \u201ctruth\u201d and \u201cThummim\u201d as \u201cclear showing,\u201d Philo provides an allegorical explanation of one of the central components of the high priest\u2019s vestments.
\n70. he should scrutinize the facts rather than the litigants The LXX in both Deut. 1:17 and 16:19 translates MT lo takir(u) panim literally, as \u201cto recognize a face,\u201d and this is apparently the way Philo has read the text.
\nrelations, friends \u2026 enemies Rabbinic law explicitly forbids one to sit as a judge in such cases. See, e.g., M. Sanh. 1\u20134; B. Ket. 105b.
\n71. \u201cjudgment is God\u2019s\u201d and the judge is the steward of judgment The phrase \u201cjudgment is God\u2019s\u201d echoes Deut. 1:17. Since the human judge is God\u2019s agent, impartial judgment is a religious duty.
\nthe best of all Yonge\u2019s rendering is: \u201cthe most excellent of all beings.\u201d
\n72. not to show pity to the poor man in giving judgment The reference here is to Exod. 23:3: \u201cnor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute,\u201d and Lev. 19:15: \u201cYou shall not render an unfair decision: do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich.\u201d Philo\u2019s point here is that while kindness and charity are most important characteristics, objectivity is an essential part of true judgment.
\n73. what one of the men of old aptly said is true This is almost certainly a reference to Plato\u2019s Theaet. 176a\u2013b and is quoted as such in Philo\u2019s Flight 63. The flight from evil is there called \u201cto become like God (omoiwsis thewi) as far as this is possible; and to become like Him is to become holy, just, and wise.\u201d And see in greater detail below the comments to Spec. Laws 4.188.
\nas in showing kindness The concept that \u201cdoing kindness\u201d is a facet of imitatio Dei (imitation of God) is a very important one in Jewish tradition.
\nimitate God Gk. mimeisthai, \u201cimitate.\u201d It is clear from the context that the phrase omoiwsis thewi (Plato, Theaet. 176a\u2013b), \u201cto become like God,\u201d which Philo quoted in Flight 63, and the term eksomoiwsis, \u201cto be like God\u201d in Spec. Laws 4.188, should likewise be understood as meaning \u201cto imitate\u201d and not \u201cto become like\u201d in the sense of existential similarity.
\n74. equality Philo\u2019s use of the word \u201cequality\u201d (isoths) should not be understood as we understand it, but rather something closer to \u201cfair dealing.\u201d Plato\u2014who was of course one of the most important components of Philo\u2019s paedeia (classical Greek education)\u2014expresses the concept very well in his Leg. 757.
\n75. All who have drawn water from wisdom\u2019s wells Wisdom as water is a common metaphor in traditional Jewish sources, particularly when \u201cwisdom\u201d means Torah: see, for example, B. Ta\u2019an. 7a; BK 82a; and\u2014more than a century before Philo\u2019s time\u2014in the Damascus Document 6:2\u201310 (4: \u201cthe well is the Law\u201d). See also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.137\u201342 and on 4.140, a plenteous stream.
\nthrough the channel of their ears This does not contradict Philo\u2019s unequivocal statement in Spec. Laws 4.60 that, respecting evidence, sight is superior to \u201chearsay.\u201d What is referred to here is the physical means by which knowledge and values are transmitted.
\nprinciples and doctrines Gk.: dogmasi kai theoremasi. The semantic unit dogma kai theorema is not found in Greek literature before Philo, and becomes common only in patristic literature. It is a Judeo-Greek word combination meaning something like \u201claws and their theoretical underpinnings.\u201d
\n76. gems Gk. agalmata. In the light of the other instances of Philo\u2019s use of this word, it would probably be better rendered either by \u201cqualities\u201d or \u201cimages\u201d (cf. Spec. Laws 4.238; Sobriety 38; and in Virtues 165, \u201can image enshrined\u201d).
\nCompassion is for misfortunes, and he who acts wickedly of his own free will is not unfortunate but unjust This is an \u201capology\u201d for the necessity to renounce compassion when acting as a judge. The distinction is made between wanton misdeeds and those that are the result of circumstance.
\n77. let no cowering, cringing rogue of a poor man \u2026 penniless condition This describes what must have been a common phenomenon. It is not clear whether these words reflect an emotional identification on Philo\u2019s part or a rejection of the phenomenon.
\none who undertakes to act as judge must be a good money changer To discern between true and counterfeit arguments. The metaphor is highly appropriate to the financial aristocracy to which Philo belonged.
\n78\u2013131 These sections are not translated in this volume; what follows is a brief summary of their contents. In 78, Philo proceeds to the Tenth Commandment, regarding covetousness, which he interprets to include \u201cappetites\u201d in general: nearly all of the laws that Philo subsumes under this commandment relate to forbidden foods\u2014the prohibition regarding \u201cthe firstfruits,\u201d and the laws of kashrut (Spec. Laws 4.96\u2013125). Although the association between these laws and the Tenth Commandment is reasonable, since one must not covet what is forbidden, at first glance their placement under this rubric is surprising. Perhaps Philo wished to enhance their importance in the eyes of his audience. In 126\u2013131, Philo concludes his discussion with a lively description of what Num. 11:31\u201334 MT has called \u201cThe Graves of Lust,\u201d and Philo, \u201cThe Monuments of Lust.\u201d He recounts the people\u2019s lust for meat, God\u2019s sending the quails to serve as meat for the multitude, the lustful reaction of the people, and its dire result. The survey of the legislation under the rubric of one or another commandment is brought to a close in Spec. Laws 4.131 by the pronouncement \u201cLet a man be well pleasing to God, to the universe [Gk.: kosmos], to nature, to laws, to wise men, and discard self love. So only will he attain true excellence.\u201d
\n132\u201335 In the opening words of 132, Philo informs the reader that at this point he has completed that part of his work in which he has placed \u201cthe specific ordinances\u201d under the headings of one or another of the commandments of the Decalogue. He then states in 133\u201334 that the remainder of the book concerns itself with matters that he defines as being of general relevance. In 135, he introduces his next topic: justice, one of the universal virtues. As is typical with Philo, he relates to the material through both Hellenistic and Jewish frames of reference at one and the same time.
\n132. thus completed our survey of the ten oracles, and the laws which are dependent on them Philo does not find it necessary to explain his classification under the rubrics of the Decalogue (see introductory comments). This is noteworthy because this is not the traditional classification of the commandments in Rabbinic sources.
\nmain heads \u2026 as generic laws, and all particular laws of which Moses was the spokesman as dependent species Philo here differentiates clearly between the Decalogue as a whole, which was revealed to the entire nation, and the rest of the Torah, which was given to Moses, who then relayed it to the people. Parallels to this idea may be found in such tannaitic midrashim as Mek. Jethro 9 on Exod. 20:16 referred to above: \u201cAnd they said to Moses, \u2018You speak to us and we will listen\u2019; indicating that they didn\u2019t have the strength to receive directly more than the Decalogue [italics mine], as it is written, \u2018If we hear the voice of the LORD any longer we shall die \u2026 You go closer and hear\u2019 [Deut. 5:23\u201324]\u201d; and in a similar spirit, Sifre Deut. 32:10. These midrashim envision the entire Decalogue as having been delivered directly by God, while the rest of the Torah was given through the mediation of Moses. See also introductory comments and the comment on Spec. Laws 2.189.
\nI have assigned and attached to each of the heads Philo appears here to inform the reader that the discrete classification in On the Special Laws was his own contribution, even while, as we have noted, he takes it for granted that the principle of classification under the Decalogue is familiar to his readers. On the other hand, although the number 613 for the commandments has become axiomatic, the exact assignment of the specific commandments has never become a matter of consensus (see introductory comments).
\n133. some things As Colson notes, the \u201cthings\u201d are \u201cthe virtues,\u201d and not\u2014as in Heinemann\u2019s trans-lation\u2014\u201cthe laws.\u201d
\n134. These are the virtues of universal value Colson, in his note to 133, explains that what is referred to are the Greek virtues introduced in 134; Heinemann, in contrast, views \u201cthese\u201d as indicating the Mosaic laws. However, since the \u201cphilosophic\u201d and the \u201cJewish\u201d parameters of the subject neither can nor should be separated in Philo\u2019s works, this text may well be referring to both. Philo\u2019s line of reasoning is that one can achieve the \u201cvirtuous life\u201d from the Greek frame of reference by the fulfillment of the Mosaic commandments. Since according to both the Platonic and Aristotelian schools, \u201cthe aim of all legislation \u2026 (and) what distinguishes a good form of constitution from a bad one\u201d is the achievement of Virtue (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 2.1103b 6\u20137), the Mosaic commandments are in his view the concrete realization of this.
\ndrill and inculcate Colson renders the Gk. aleiphosi kai protrepousi as: \u201cincite and exhort us to.\u201d
\ncombining wholesome words, and with words, actions of true worth While the combining of words with actions is found in later Stoic sources, the passage also reproduces the LXX reading of Deut. 30:14. And note that the association of this verse with the philosophic clich\u00e9 had apparently already been made long before Philo. For while the MT reads: \u201cin your mouth and in your heart, to observe it,\u201d the LXX adds \u201cand in your hands.\u201d The philosophic echo is even clearer in Philo\u2019s Rewards 80; see also Posterity 85, 88.
\n135. piety or holiness Colson used \u201cor\u201d rather than the \u201cand\u201d found in the Greek text because the subject is the singular \u201cqueen.\u201d I prefer to read the words as a hendiadys\u2014the expression of a single concept by two words, a usage that is not uncommon in Philonic texts. It would then be virtually synonymous with theosebeia. Philo is informing the reader that \u201cpiety and holiness\u201d\u2014the observance of the traditional commandments\u2014were the subject matter of Spec. Laws 1\u20134.132.
\njustice Gk.: dikaiosyn\u0113. This is often considered one of the cardinal virtues. The heading \u201cOn Justice\u201d appears in the manuscripts at this point, and what follows does indeed comprise a literary unit, culminating at the end of the book with a paean on the theme of \u201cjustice\u201d in 230\u201338. In classic Greek the connotation of the word dikaiosyn\u0113 is generally understood to be \u201cjustice,\u201d in the legal sense, but in Judeo-Greek it indicates a commitment to following the precepts of traditional Judaism (including the commandments). Philo uses the word in one or the other connotation, as the context suggests.
\n136. This I have already mentioned As will become apparent as we proceed, 136 is the continuation of 55\u201378, which addressed \u201claw courts and judges.\u201d
\nthe other parts of the subject That is, the other connotation of dikaiosyn\u0113. It would have been evident to Philo\u2019s contemporary readers that in 136, 137, and 141 in particular Philo is using dikaiosyn\u0113 in its specifically Jewish connotation: \u201cthe keeping of the Commandments\u201d (or \u201cTorah\u201d).
\n137\u201342 Before the intervention of scholarly emendation, these sections faithfully reflected both the midrashic tradition current at the time and halakhic praxis. The study of Philo\u2019s description of the phylacteries against the backdrop of archeological and literary sources has shown that it accords with the practice at the time, and that Philo\u2019s conceptualization is not out of line with Rabbinic tradition. Here too, as often elsewhere, Philo is close in spirit to Rabbinic tradition as it has found expression in talmudic sources, at the same time that he differs from the details of the halakhah as later codified; a similar study respecting his description of the mezuzah leads to much the same conclusion. Likewise, as in the comment on 75, All who have drawn water from wisdom\u2019s wells, and on 140, a plenteous stream, the unquestioning equation of \u201cwater\u201d and \u201cTorah\u201d is entirely at one with Philo\u2019s traditional Jewish cultural heritage.
\n137. The law Gk. nomos. Perhaps a clearer rendition of the opening words of this passage would be: \u201cThe Commandments, says the Torah, must be set in the heart.\u201d In the LXX, nomos means \u201cTorah\u201d when this is indicated by the context. It would have been self-evident to Philo\u2019s contemporary audience that what follows is referring to \u201cLaw\u201d in the connotation \u201cTorah.\u201d
\nwe must set the rules of justice The Gk. here for \u201cjustice\u201d is ta dikaia, and it is evident from the context that here it means \u201cbiblical Commandments.\u201d
\nin the heart and fasten them for a sign upon the hand, and have them shaking before the eyes Philo\u2019s contemporary readers almost certainly would have immediately recognized this paraphrase of the Shema in Deut. 6:4\u20139 (cf. also 11:18\u201320). Deuteronomy 6:6, 8, OJPS reads: \u201cAnd these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart \u2026 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.\u201d Philo\u2019s allusion to the tefillin, or phylacteries, as \u201cshaking before the eyes\u201d is congruent with their description in B. Men. 34b\u201335a: that they originally consisted of four separate compartments joined only at the top.
\nthe rules of justice must not be committed to untrustworthy ears Philo means that what is untrustworthy is the sense of hearing, not the person. In Spec. Laws 4.135, Philo informed the reader that he would be discussing \u201cjustice\u201d in a continuation of his remarks on the virtues in 55. The present passage echoes 59\u201361, where hearsay was rejected as evidence in law courts.
\nlessons Colson\u2014following the suggested correction by Cohn that was adopted by Heinemann\u2014corrects the reading of the manuscripts SM(V) from anathhmatwn to mathhmatwn (replacing the initial alpha with a mu) and translates this word as \u201clessons.\u201d I contend, however, that the mss. reading = \u201csacred ornaments\u201d not only can, but should be preserved, and that the allusion is to the Urim and Thummim on the breastplate of the high priest, referred to in 69.
\n138. for the hand is the symbol of action That is, the theoretical principles of the commandments, referred to in 137 as being \u201cin the heart,\u201d must also be translated into practical action.
\non this, the law bids us fasten and hang the rules of justice for a sign \u201cThis\u201d refers to the hand; Philo alludes here to the tefillin shel yad (phylacteries worn on the hand). (See Letter of Aristeas, especially Let. Aris. 159 and the comment there.)
\n139. the vision of them \u201cThem\u201d refers to \u201cthe Commandments,\u201d for this is the Judeo-Greek connotation of the word dikaia that appears here in the Greek text.
\nclose to our eyes This refers to the \u201cfrontlets\u201d (Deut. 6:8 OJPS and KJV), or tefillin shel rosh (phylacteries of the head). There is reason to suppose that Philo is writing from personal experience, even though the tefillin he describes differs from that which is used today; they were clearly much smaller. Although the Talmud does not set minimum or maximum measurements, Matt. 23:5 NRSV relates that Jesus criticized the sages for \u201c[making] their phylacteries broad,\u201d so presumably those of the general populace were of more modest dimensions (see also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.139, a clear discernment of them).
\nthey must have vibration and movement As in the comment on Spec. Laws 4.137, this fits the description in B. Men. 34b\u201335a, that the tefillin originally consisted of four separate compartments joined only at the top. And, unlike the tefillin of today, tefillin of a small size could easily have dangled down onto the forehead.
\na clear discernment of them For mention in Rabbinic sources of the requirement to be constantly conscious of the tefillin, see, e.g., B. Shab. 12a: Rabbah the son of R. Huna said, \u201cOne must feel his tefillin every now and then.\u201d The perceived purpose of wearing tefillin seems to have differed depending on the group of people. Philo\u2019s view of tefillin as an aid to the wearer\u2019s memory, to help one to keep the commandments in mind, accords with that of the Rabbinic sages, based on their interpretation of Exod. 11:9, 10; Deut. 6:8; and 11:18. By contrast, in the popular mind, the tefillin were\u2014and for some still are\u2014a talisman or amulet believed to have the ability to preserve its wearer from harm\u2014in effect, to keep the wearer in God\u2019s mind, rather than helping the wearer keep God in mind. This second view appears in the New Testament. In, Matthew, instead of the word tefillin, we find the Gk. phylakteria, which generally meant \u201camulet\u201d or \u201ccharm\u201d (cf., e.g., Plutarch 2.378b): \u201c\u2026 they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long\u201d (Matt. 23:5 NRSV). Phylakteria appears only here in the NT, and not at all in the LXX.
\n140. to set their image in the eye of the soul \u2026 engaged in their natural activities The reference is to the tefillin shel Rosh (the \u201cfrontlets\u201d) and their contents. Although talmudic sources reveal that in ancient times, many men wore the tefillin the entire day (cf. B. Shab. 12a; Yoma 12a; Men. 36b; Suk. 46a), doing so was impractical for many people, since contact with anything ritually defiling was forbidden while wearing tefillin. This requirement respecting ritual cleanliness is given as the reason why, in view of the practical facets of child nurture, women were not included in this commandment.
\na plenteous stream The metaphor of \u201cTorah\u201d as \u201cwater\u201d is quite common throughout Philo\u2019s writings, including Spec. Laws 4.56 (\u201cthe water of justice,\u201d etc.\u2014not included in this volume). The image is very much at home both in Rabbinic and in other early Jewish sources; see, for example, M. Avot 2:8, where R. Eleazar b. Arakh is portrayed as \u201can overflowing fountain\u201d; it is found in many midrashim as well. See also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.137\u201342 and on Spec. Laws 4.75, All who have drawn water from wisdom\u2019s wells.
\nof discourses and doctrines The word combination \u201cdiscourses and doctrines\u201d was a Judeo-Greek idiom that meant \u201cbiblical laws and other regulations.\u201d
\ninto his ears as into a conduit Philo\u2019s remark here that the ears are a channel leading into the soul seems at first glance to contradict his denigration of the sense of hearing, in Spec. Laws 4.60\u201361 and 137. However, here as well as in 75 and 107, the ears are no more than a channel providing access to the soul and not independent arbiters.
\n141. to teach the principles of justice As has been noted in the comment to 137, \u201cjustice\u201d (dikaia) in this context refers to \u201cthe Commandments.\u201d What follows is a close parallel to the Shema (Deut. 6:7; cf. also 11:19): \u201cImpress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up.\u201d
\nthe just Probably should be rendered, \u201cthe Commandments.\u201d
\neternal principles and doctrines This word combination (aidiois dogmasin kai theorhmasin) is not found in the extant literature before Philo, which strongly supports the thesis that it is a Judeo-Greek idiom, and in contexts such as this one means \u201ctraditional ordinances and their theoretical underpinnings.\u201d
\n142. in front of the door posts This is a reference to the mezuzah, and paraphrases the third verse of the Shema (Deut. 6:9; 11:20): \u201cInscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.\u201d The language of Philo does not follow exactly either the MT or the LXX. It appears that in contrast to B. Men. 34a, which enjoins writing the words on parchment, Philo\u2019s language implies engraving on stone. This is in line with archeological evidence that points to an earlier, less narrowly defined practice (not necessarily sectarian) that was apparently eventually standardized in the form we know today.
\n143\u201348 This passage forbids either adding to or subtracting from the divine Commandments. This is a basic, axiomatic principle of the Rabbinic halakhic system, and was a matter of consensus in Philo\u2019s day as well. The disunity and dissension culminating in sectarian schism concerned the understanding and interpretation of the Mosaic revelation, not its eternal validity. Thus, even the author of Matt. 5:17, who quotes Jesus as saying, \u201cDo not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets\u201d (NRSV) took it for granted that the Law was obligatory. This is not to say that there were not many who took their obligations lightly, and others who, while in principle were committed to the sanctity of every word, \u201cregarded the laws in their literal sense in the light of symbols\u201d (Philo, Migration 89). Indeed, since most successful innovations are the culmination of already existing tendencies, such an approach may well have served as the point of departure for Paul\u2019s abrogation of the requirement to fulfill the Law.
\n143. nothing should be added or taken away See Deut. 4:2: \u201cYou shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I enjoin upon you\u201d; cf. also Deut. 13:1 (12:1LXX): \u201cBe careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it.\u201d
\nand the just which is taken away This emendation is at the very least superfluous, for the immediate continuation of Philo\u2019s statement here is that \u201cthe wise legislator has omitted nothing,\u201d and only in the next section does Philo turn to the aspect of \u201ctaking away.\u201d For the major point of the passage, see Spec. Laws 4.147 and the comments there.
\nthe wise legislator That is, Moses.
\njustice Gk. dikaiosyn\u0113. As the context indicates, this clearly refers to the Commandments rather than legal justice.
\n144. Further he suggests The identity of the subject \u201che\u201d is not entirely clear. Perhaps it refers simultaneously to Moses, who has just been called \u201cthe wise legislator,\u201d and to Aristotle, for it echoes his statement in Eth. nic. 2.6.15\u201316.1106b, 36.1107a: \u201cVirtue then, is a state of character concerned with choice \u2026 a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.\u201d This was probably a popular truism. If this is indeed so, before us is yet another example of double entendre so typical of Philo\u2019s style.
\n145. the knowledge of what ought to be endured This echoes the definition of \u201ccourage\u201d that was part of the Stoics\u2019 \u201cschool text\u201d material; Philo\u2014clearly confident that his readers are familiar with it\u2014quotes it more extensively in Alleg. Interp. 1.68 and Philo also alludes to it in Virtues 1.
\neven if their contact with education has been but small Using his remarks in Spec. Laws 4.146 as a bridge, Philo transfers the barb of this remark to the frame of reference of \u201cpiety\u201d in 147.
\n146. for by adding he will make rashness and by taking away he will make cowardice The paraphrase here of Aristotle\u2019s Eth. nic. 2.1107b\u2014\u201cthe man who exceeds in confidence is rash, and he who exceeds in fear and falls short in confidence is a coward\u201d\u2014is the continuation of the quotation begun in Spec. Laws 4.144.
\n147. In the same way too if one adds \u2026 to the queen of virtues piety Gk. translated here as \u201cpiety\u201d is eusebeia. Philo uses the same argument in this section as in the preceding one, replacing the virtue \u201ccourage\u201d with \u201cpiety\u201d and coming to the conclusion that, similarly, neither subtraction nor addition leads to true piety. He makes the same point in Unchangeable 162\u201365, and less explicitly in Migration 143\u201347. This idea too was also almost certainly \u201ccommon knowledge\u201d in Philo\u2019s day. Plutarch, who lived not much after Philo (ca. 46\u2013120 CE), makes a somewhat similar point when he writes in Moralia, de Superstitione 171f. \u201cthat some persons, in trying to escape superstition, rush into a rough and hardened atheism, thus overleaping true religion which lies between.\u201d
\nAddition will beget superstition Philo is emphatically stressing that not only does \u201csubtraction\u201d (i.e., not having enough piety) beget impiety (asebeia), but also \u201caddition\u201d (i.e., taking piety to an extreme) distorts piety by turning it into superstition (deisidaimonia). His belaboring of the point may well reflect the situation in the Jewish world of his day.
\nthe knowledge of the service of God Once again, there is an echo of a Stoic definition (see SVF 3.157, no. 608 = Lives 7.119). See too the Pseudo-Platonic Definitiones 412e 14, where eusebeia is defined as: \u201cdikaiosyn\u0113 respecting the gods.\u201d
\n148. what is left unsaid Do these words allude to a literary source that Philo has abridged, or to additional criticism on his part (left unspoken) of those who wished to add or subtract from \u201cpiety\u201d (meaning, the Laws)? In any case, Philo has succeeded in conveying a very \u201cJewish\u201d message by couching it simultaneously in philosophic and Judeo-Greek terminology, making optimal use of double entendre.
\n149\u201350 These sections conclude the first part of an appendix to Philo\u2019s discussion of the commandments under the rubrics of the Decalogue\u2014an appendix that contains \u201cthose laws that do not fit under a specific commandment of the Decalogue, but belong to them all\u201d (Spec. Laws 4.133). The first commandment of general relevance raised here was the prohibition against adding to or taking away from what is commanded in the Torah. Philo now brings up its corollary by stating that the obligation to keep the \u201cancient customs\u201d (Spec. Laws 4.149) is included in the divine legislation. Philo and Rabbinic literature are at one in considering both the prohibition against adding or subtracting as well as the commandment to follow the \u201cunwritten laws\u201d (149) to be biblical injunctions.
\n149. Another commandment of general value Philo states clearly that what follows is also a general biblical category, and not a detail.
\nThou shalt not remove thy neighbor\u2019s landmarks which thy forerunners have set up Philo renders this verse (Deut. 19:14) to indicate the obligation to keep the \u201cancient customs\u201d\u2014namely, that the obligation to abide by the \u201cunwritten laws\u201d and ancient customs is biblical. He considers this to be an important \u201cwritten law\u201d (Spec. Laws 4.150), presenting it here immediately following the biblical injunction neither to add nor subtract from the biblical laws (cf. Deut. 4:2; 13:1\u2014so OJPS; KJV 12:32) as a corollary to it. This understanding of Deut. 19:14 both preceded and followed Philo by hundreds of years.
\nFor customs are unwritten laws, the decisions approved by men of old For the study of the terms \u201cancient customs,\u201d \u201cunwritten laws,\u201d \u201cdecisions approved by men of old,\u201d and similar terms both within and outside Philo\u2019s writings, and particularly the question of their relation to what in Judaism is called \u201cOral Law\u201d (Torah she-be-al peh), see my Philo Judaeus.
\n150. But he who faithfully observes the unwritten deserves commendation, since the virtue which he displays is freely willed Philo is usually understood here to mean that the faithful observance of what he has called \u201cunwritten laws\u201d was not compulsory. But a careful reading reveals that what Philo has actually written is not that the \u201cunwritten laws\u201d are not compulsory, but that, in contrast to the \u201cwritten laws,\u201d no sanction is specified for their transgression. In support of this understanding of the text, note that below, in Spec. Laws 4.193, Philo writes, \u201cAgain, those who handle weights and measures \u2026 are no doubt subject to market controllers, but ought \u2026 to do what is just \u2026 of their own free will.\u201d External compulsion or its absence is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the \u201cunwritten laws\u201d or \u201cancient customs\u201d are obligatory. Philo and later Rabbinic sources, though not identical either in their frame of reference or in their conclusions, both make an ethical judgment. Philo rates voluntary performance in the absence of legal coercion more highly. The question for the Rabbinic sources is the moral status of an action when there is no legal obligation to perform it. The Rabbis reach the opposite conclusion\u2014namely, the paradoxical consideration that \u201che who is commanded and fulfills [the command] is greater than he who does the same thing without being commanded\u201d (B. BK 87a; Kid. 31a; et al.).
\n151\u201359 In the manuscripts, the words \u201cOn the appointment of rulers\u201d stand at the beginning of 151. Whether or not the title was in the original manuscript, the ensuing passages are indeed concerned with the choice of rulers and the behavior appropriate to them, using Deut. 17:14\u201320 as the frame of reference. Since the appointment of rulers concerns the people as a whole, rather than one or another individual, in this sense it belongs to the \u201cgeneral\u201d laws. These sections should be read as homiletic hermeneutics, as a passionate tirade cloaked in the guise of biblical interpretation. For when read on the assumption that Philo\u2019s primary intention was to express his personal stand in relation to a burning political issue, and not merely to recapitulate the law relevant to the appointment of rulers, this passage comes alive. Philo\u2019s contemporary readers, who lived and breathed the same political environment as he did, could only have read these sections as a highly charged and caustic tirade, its allusions and innuendo making it as topical as the editorial page of the weekend newspaper is today.
\n151\u201356 The length and heated invective of these sections have no foundation in the underlying biblical pericope, hinting that Philo\u2019s text here is more than a mere recapitulation of the biblical text embroidered with popular Hellenistic cultural frames of reference. The text may also be read as leading up to an argument in favor of Agrippa\u2019s being chosen as the next ruler (see the comment on Spec. Laws 4.157\u201359).
\n151. filling magistracies by lot Many sources from the classic Greek tradition mention this method, most of them being for relatively minor positions, but Philo\u2019s description and rejection of this method of appointment, which begins here, builds to its crescendo in 156 when he refers to \u201cone who is to have in his hands great and populous cities with all their inhabitants.\u201d Can this be directed at anyone other than the Roman emperor? If the emperor is indeed Philo\u2019s intended target, then what we have is a criticism of what had by Philo\u2019s day become the hereditary nature of the succession of the Principate. In 151\u201356, Philo\u2019s use of the Gk. kleros, translated by Colson as \u201clot,\u201d creates an almost imperceptible shift from this definition into its other major connotation: \u201cinheritance.\u201d Even the first instance of the word here in 151 is probably already a double entendre. Note that in 150, Philo uses the word kleronomein, \u201cto inherit.\u201d Passing from one connotation of a word to another is a stylistic nuance employed by Philo in his writings.
\n152. \u201cminor rulers\u201d \u2026 whom we call \u201cmasters\u201d From the context it is clear that what are indicated are slave owners. This comparison has, implicit in it, the servile status of the population respecting the ruler.
\n153. to make masters and rulers of whole cities and nations In the ancient world, the word \u201ccity\u201d meant not only municipality, but was also used for what we would call \u201ccountry.\u201d Both Athens and Rome were primarily \u201ccities,\u201d even though during much of their existence, they were empires. The Gk. ethnos, which Colson has here translated \u201cnations,\u201d means \u201cpeoples\u201d rather than \u201cpolitical entities.\u201d
\na blunder of fortune Colson, in a footnote to this text, suggests also \u201ca random act of fortune\u201d or \u201ca freak of fortune.\u201d
\nphysicians do not gain their posts by lot This expression, along with the ensuing comparison with pilots and navigators, was a popular clich\u00e9 in Philo\u2019s day.
\n154. And to secure a successful voyage Note that, whereas in other contexts the comparison of rulers with navigators is concise, here it continues for three complete sections. This suggests that there is indeed more here than a usual clich\u00e9, and that a contemporary association is in Philo\u2019s mind\u2014one which was shared by his contemporary readers.
\nshipwrecks in which Nature has no part Literally, \u201chandmade shipwrecks.\u201d As Colson has noted at this section, the Gk. is cheiropoieta, \u201chomemade\u201d or \u201chandmade.\u201d
\n156. great and populous cities As noted in the comment on 151, the most natural assumption is that this is an allusion to the Roman emperor, since it was into his hands that \u201cgreat and populous cities with all their inhabitants\u201d were entrusted.
\nmatters private, public and sacred This trilogy reads like legalistic phraseology.
\n157\u201359 The present commentary reads Spec. Laws 4.151\u201359 on the hypothesis that it is a brief for the acceptance of Agrippa\u2019s appointment as King of Judea by the newly elected Roman Emperor Claudius. Agrippa was not unequivocally accepted by all of his compatriots. The issue must have been a live one not only in Judea but also in the Alexandrian Jewish community, and particularly in such circles as Philo\u2019s own family, which had at one time even been related to Agrippa by marriage (see Josephus, Ant. 19.276\u201377). Deut. 17:15 reads, \u201cyou shall be free to set a king over yourself, one chosen by the LORD your God. Be sure to set as king over yourself one of your own people; you must not set a foreigner over you, one who is not your kinsman.\u201d
\n157. to institute appointment by election The Gk. word that Colson renders \u201cby election\u201d is cheirotonetas, literally, \u201cchosen by hand\u201d\u2014and that is exactly what happened here: Claudius chose Agrippa. Note too that in Spec. Laws 4.154, the Gk. used was cheiropoieta, \u201chandmade.\u201d One wonders whether Philo meant this to serve as a linguistic association, one that would have been noticed by his sophisticated contemporary readers.
\nthou shalt establish a ruler over thyself, not a foreigner but from thy brethren Scripture mentions \u201cone of your own people\u201d first, whereas Philo mentions the \u201cforeigner\u201d first. As we know both from Josephus and from Rabbinic sources, the prohibition mentioned in Deut. 17:15 against setting a foreigner over the people was a burning contemporary political issue in Philo\u2019s day. For this was when the newly elected Roman Emperor Claudius appointed Agrippa as King of Judea, even though his status as a Jew was questionable.
\nunimpeachable scrutiny of the ruler The term \u201cunimpeachable scrutiny\u201d in a similar context is found in Plato, Leg. 6.759c; cf. also Spec. Laws 4.164. The text here refers to the dokimasia, the examination and scrutiny of magistrates after election, to see if they fulfill the legal requirements of legitimacy, full citizenship, and so on. I suggest that this is what Philo meant here, and he argues that Agrippa has passed muster. This connotation is also used by Philo in Flaccus 130.
\nthat the man may be called \u201cthe chosen from the race\u201d I have added the quotation marks to Colson\u2019s translation, and suggest that this phrase is meant to answer the requirement in Deut. 17:15 that the ruler be \u201cone chosen by the LORD your God \u2026 one of your own people\u201d; \u201cthe man\u201d here is a reference to Agrippa.
\nin which he is what the eye is in the body Colson notes that the text is obscure. This is true, but it is no more obscure than what has preceded it. The Greek text here does not have the definite article and so actually reads: \u201clike eye in body.\u201d Philo is portraying Agrippa as the eye for the Jewish Commonwealth (body) with respect to the Romans.
\n158. The reasons subjoined to show why a foreigner should not be selected Philo makes no mention of the biblical prohibition against returning to Egypt found in Deut. 17:16, which is entirely understandable given that he and his contemporary readers lived in Alexandria, Egypt.
\nto prevent him from amassing \u2026 great wealth In the MT, this is an injunction addressed to the Jewish king, who is forbidden \u201cto keep many horses \u2026 have many wives,\u201d etc. (Deut. 17:16\u201317). But the LXX, and Philo in its wake, makes this the reason for appointing a kinsman and not a foreigner: \u201cbecause he [the Jewish king] shall not multiply\u201d (emphasis mine) and so on.
\nall unjustly wrung from the poverty of his subjects Philo\u2019s description of wealth acquired in this reprehensible manner instantly recalls the behavior of the Roman procurators and governors toward the inhabitants of the provinces. In fact, Philo\u2019s insistence here \u201cthat he [the Jewish ruler] should not \u2026 evict the natives from the land and compel them to emigrate\u201d is a mirror reflection of his description of the Romans\u2019 behavior in Flaccus 105. Even without any specific reference to current events, I think that Philo must have employed the biblical verses on the appointment of a king (Deut. 17:15\u201317) to allude to the avarice, greed, and cruelty that was so typical of the foreign Roman rulers, including their eviction of provincials under their rule whenever this served their personal advantage.
\n159. the kinship of having one citizenship and the same law and one God who has taken all members of the nation for His portion This is a fairly forthright definition on Philo\u2019s part of \u201cwho is a Jew.\u201d For the locution \u201call members of the nation for His portion\u201d see Deut. 32:9 \u201cFor the LORD\u2019s portion is His people,\u201d and see once again in Spec. Laws 4.180.
\n160\u201369 The biblical springboard here is Deut. 17:18\u201320.
\n160. bids him write out with his own hand The biblical text says merely that the king \u201cshall write him a copy of this law in a book\u201d (Deut. 17:18 OJPS), without unequivocally stating that he must do this with his own hand. Philo, however, understands it to mean, \u201cby his own hand\u201d and lays great stress on this. For he writes: (160) \u201che shall write with his own hand,\u201d (161) \u201cafter writing,\u201d \u201cwith what he has written,\u201d (162) \u201cthe work of his own pen,\u201d \u201chis own writing,\u201d (163) \u201cI have written these words \u2026 without employing another,\u201d etc. (163) \u2026 I write them in a book.\u201d
\nsequel to the law The Gk. used by Philo for MT mishneh torah is epinomis, a term that recalls the Platonic book of this name. Colson has taken it for granted that Philo is referring to the book of Deuteronomy, but this is not so; neither did the sages necessarily understand MT mishneh torah as denoting this.
\nwhich embraces them all in the form of a summary If the king wrote it \u201cwith his own hand,\u201d the document involved must have been a short one.
\nordinances Colson has \u201cordinance\u201d in the singular. This is presumably a typist\u2019s error.
\n161. he must endeavor every day to read and familiarize himself with what he has written A paraphrase of Deut. 17:19.
\n162. the work of his own pen See the comment on Spec. Laws 4.160.
\n163. when he reads he will reason thus with himself Philo discusses what follows in the first person, a common enough literary device, which enlivens the somewhat sanctimonious content.
\nlike those who write for hire In the ancient world, the \u201cpublication\u201d of books was by means of professional copyists, who sat together, with one of their number sitting before them and dictating the text.
\n164. the Book of the Sequel to the Law The Greek reads \u201cthe Book of the Epinomis.\u201d Philo identifies the Epinomis both as the sceptre of the Jewish king and as his unimpeachable ensign of sovereignty. While this can and should be taken figuratively\u2014that is, to indicate that the epitome of the Torah contained in the Epinomis is the king\u2019s unimpeachable document of appointment and constitution\u2014given that in Philo\u2019s day, books were normally in the form of scrolls, he is apparently also describing the king as holding the Scroll of the Epinomis in his hand like a sceptre. Some Rabbinic sources understand the words mishneh torah found here in Deut. 17:18 to be a reference to two scrolls, and describe the second scroll as written in the form of an amulet to be worn on the king\u2019s arm as a royal insignia. While an amulet is not a rod, they both are described as being an appurtenance of the royal ceremonial dress and as a symbol of office.
\nan ensign of sovereignty which none can impeach Compare the use of this same word (anepileptou) in Spec. Laws 4.157, in the phrase \u201cunimpeachable scrutiny of the ruler.\u201d If the topic of Agrippa\u2019s appointment and his compatriots\u2019 reluctance to accept it is indeed in the background, the message here is that the objections are unfounded.
\n165. the holy laws for my staff and support Philo almost imperceptibly goes from a literal understanding of the words to its symbolic message.
\nthe spirit of equality Colson renders Gk. isoths \u201cequality,\u201d which is an accurate translation but hardly embodies its full connotation. Isoths should often be translated as \u201cpolitical equity,\u201d \u201cjustice,\u201d \u201cfair dealing,\u201d or \u201cimpartiality,\u201d connotations that are often preferred by Philo; see e.g. the comment to 74 above. Another example of Philo\u2019s use of a nuanced connotation is his encomium of \u201cequality\u201d below in 232\u201338 at the end of Spec. Laws 4 (not included in the Translation). It opens with the words, \u201cAll things in heaven and earth have been ordered aright by equality under immovable laws and statutes, for who does not know that the relation of days to nights and nights to days is regulated \u2026 according to intervals of proportional equality\u201d (italics mine). This does not mean either \u201cequality\u201d in the sense that we are used to understand the word, nor does it mean \u201cidentity.\u201d
\n166. Equality will earn its just reward Almost like a political candidate today, the king is presented as promising that his behavior will earn the goodwill and safety of his subjects, freedom from war, and a transparent, stable government.
\nequality, which eschews sedition Colson has: \u201cequality, who eschews sedition.\u201d
\n167. I shall not sway to either side as on a balance The image drawn by Philo is that of the ancient scale, which is used even today as the insignia of justice. It is also an echo of Deut. 17:20: \u201c\u2026 or deviate from the Instruction to the right or to the left.\u201d
\nthe central highway Philo here alludes to Num. 20:17: \u201cWe will follow the king\u2019s highway, turning off neither to the right nor to the left\u201d; cf. in a similar vein Unchangeable 162. From very ancient times, the \u201cKing\u2019s Highway\u201d that follows the eastern side of the Jordan River has been the main road leading from the Red Sea in the south to Damascus (Syria) in the north. Philo must have been familiar with it, since it was in use in Roman times and continues to be so.
\n169. who is impervious to bribes and gives just judgments justly See Spec. Laws 4.62\u201367 and the comments there.
\nthat the days of his government shall be long For a somewhat similar interpretation of \u201clong life\u201d\u2014meaning a life lived wisely, more so than a life lasting many years\u2014see Philo, Heir 290.
\n170. should choose lieutenants \u2026 for their good sense, ability, justice, and godliness As Philo points out in Spec. Laws 4.173, this echoes Exod. 18:13\u201326. But while the qualities mentioned here are similar to those listed in Exod. 18:21 (\u201cYou shall also seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain\u201d), the Torah verses describe qualities of people, whereas Philo lists abstract virtues. This reflects the difference between Greek and biblical modes of thought.
\n172. where the commoner or the poor or the obscure are disputing with others more powerful Philo makes the point that impartial courts are the last recourse for the weak; only such a court is blind to the social, financial, and political status of the litigants.
\n173\u201378. Both these statements The first statement\u2014that a wise leader will delegate smaller matters to well-chosen subordinates (Spec. Laws 4.170\u201371)\u2014is discussed in 173\u201375, including the example of Moses himself taking advice in this regard from his father-in-law, Jethro; the second statement\u2014that the truly important cases involve disputes between those of unequal power or status, in which those less powerful are dependent on the special care of the judge (172)\u2014is expounded upon in 176\u201378.
\n175. they should not \u2026 reject the help of councilors \u2026 they should choose officers This message seems quite appropriate coming from Philo, assuming that he was actively engaged in public affairs when he wrote it (see the comment on Spec. Laws 3.1\u20136). Note that he says in On the Embassy to Gaius that he was chosen to head the legation from the Jewish community to the Roman emperor at a time of severe crisis.
\n176. the incomer Heb. ger. From the context it is clear that Philo has the righteous proselyte in mind.
\nthe widow, the orphan and the incomer These three are brought together more than 10 times in the book of Deuteronomy as the epitome of the weak, of those in need of special care.
\nGod also the ruler Better: God who is the ruler.
\n177. For when the Revealer Gk. \u201cHierophant.\u201d It is clear from the context here that the word refers to Moses.
\nGod the great and powerful The biblical reference is to Deut. 10:17\u201318: \u201cFor the LORD your God is He is God of gods and LORD of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the awful, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. He doth execute justice\u201d (OJPS). This is the only place in the Pentateuch that contains all three of these attributes together: great, mighty, and awful\u2014and it serves as the basis for the first benediction of the Amidah. Here, though Deut. 10:17\u201318 is otherwise quoted verbatim, Philo uses a different word for \u201cmighty\u201d (Gk. krataios rather than the LXX\u2019s isxuros) and he does not mention \u201cawesome.\u201d It is possible that the attribute \u201cawesome\u201d simply is not relevant to the context.
\nIncomer, for orphan and widow Better: for the \u201cincomer, and orphan and widow.\u201d This is the immediate continuation of the verse in Deut. 10:18 (see the previous comment), according to the LXX reading, but not the MT, which has \u201cthe fatherless and the widow, and befriends the stranger.\u201d
\n178. a pilgirm Gk. metanastas.
\nher husband who took over from the parents the charge of guarding and watching over her In Roman law, a woman was under the tutelage of a male relative even as an adult, and required a male guardian. This did not mean that she was not active in society, but it reflected her legal status. Although apparently Jewish girls were under the tutelage of their parents until marriage, at which time they came under their husband\u2019s jurisdiction, and a divorced or widowed woman often returned to her parents\u2019 home, legally speaking, after the age of 12, Jewish maidens as well as divorced women were their own guardians. At the same time the very early age of betrothal must be borne in mind. As Josephus remarks (Ant. 19.276\u201377), King Agrippa\u2019s daughter Berenice was betrothed to Philo\u2019s nephew at an early age, and there is no indication that this was unusual.
\n179\u201382 The preceding section provided the point of departure for 179\u201382, where the contemporary condition of the Jewish people is compared to the \u201cwidow, the orphan and the incomer.\u201d Philo stresses the isolation of the Jewish people relative to the family of nations, but that in spite of the contemporary difficulties, God is their support, thanks to the righteousness of their forefathers. At the same time, he also stresses that noble lineage does not exempt one from righteous behavior; on the contrary, the responsibilities associated with high rank increase culpability if one does not behave correctly.
\n179. the whole Jewish race is in the position of an orphan Philo takes advantage of his remarks in the last few sections to expound upon the difficult situation of the Jewish people in his day. In On Rewards and Punishments, Philo concludes this entire opus with a much longer, similarly semi-messianic message (162\u201372).
\nwhen misfortunes fall upon them which are not by the direct intervention of heaven Implicit here is the theological statement that some things occur in the world that are not the result of personal divine providence, and that except for extraordinary circumstances, the world runs its own course. A somewhat similar thought is expressed by the Sages in the Talmud; see e.g. B. Avodah Zarah 54b: \u201cOur Rabbis taught: philosophers asked the elders in Rome, \u2018If your God has no desire for idolatry, why does He not abolish it?\u2019 They replied, \u2026 The world pursues its natural course, and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to render an account.\u201d
\nBut the Jewish nation has none to take its part Philo\u2019s explanation for this is that the strictures of the Torah differ from those of all the other nations, and also that they demand \u201cthe highest standard of virtue.\u201d This recalls Haman\u2019s statement in Esther 3:8: \u201cThere is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people.\u201d And note that already in the Pentateuch, the Gentile prophet Bilaam prophesies, \u201cThere is a people that dwells apart, Not reckoned among the nations\u201d (Num. 23:9).
\n180. his people \u2026 whose portion it is \u2026 set apart out of the whole human race as a kind of firstfruits Note that Colson does not capitalize \u201chis,\u201d perhaps implying that he views \u201cMoses\u201d as its antecedent in this sentence\u2014but the \u201cpeople\u201d mentioned here are \u201cGod\u2019s people,\u201d hence I have capitalized \u201cHis\u201d in the translation. Philo\u2019s phrasing in this section is an echo of Deut. 32:9, which is found in the Torah reading for the Sabbath between Rosh Hashanah and the Day of Atonement (Ha\u2019azinu) in the annual cycle that is customary today. And cf. the similar expression \u201call members of the nation for His portion,\u201d in Spec. Laws 4.159.
\nsigns of righteousness and virtue shown by the founders of the race One of the important motifs in Jewish prayer is the mention of the patriarchs. A familiar example is the first benediction of the Amidah that is recited three times a day by observant Jews. (See note above to lemma God the great and powerful \u2026 of section 177.) And of course the prayers for the Day of Atonement are also replete with examples of this.
\n182. let no one think that good lineage is a perfect blessing and then neglect noble actions Philo here inveighs against the thought that noble birth by itself (the fact that one\u2019s forefathers were the patriarchs), without proper behavior, assures the answer to one\u2019s prayers.
\n183\u201388 In these sections, Philo comes full circle and returns to the obligations of contemporary rulers, in terms of imitatio Dei. Quoting Scripture, Philo writes that a ruler must not act fraudulently with his subjects but rather, as a father to his children. He concludes with the observation that, like God, rulers have the power for good and the reverse, for benefit or injury, and if they wish to be like God, they must, like Him, be benevolent. The final paragraph enunciates Philo\u2019s credo respecting God\u2019s nature and His relationship to the universe, and is thus an appropriate place to conclude this anthology. On the Special Laws continues for another 50 sections that cannot be treated within the confines of this commentary, and concludes with a paean to Justice, personified as the daughter of Equality. Philo\u2019s entire work concludes with the books Virtues and On Rewards and Punishments; the latter concludes with a messianic promise (Rewards 162\u201372), a motif that is also found in Spec. Laws 4.179\u201381.
\n183. to walk with fraud among the people Philo understands MT rakhil (Lev. 19:16) in a connotation similar to its rendition in the LXX (dolos, \u201ccraft, cunning, strategem\u201d), as a reference to the behavior of the ruler. This differs from what we are used to, for the OJPS and the KJV both render the Heb. lo telekh rakhil be\u2019amekhah as \u201cThou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people,\u201d which is in line with the way Rabbinic sources understood the verse.
\n185. though indeed those who do wrong craftily are more wicked than open adversaries This is a comment on the prohibition against \u201c[walking] with fraud.\u201d If Philo is relating to the current political situation, his contemporaries would have found the passage intensely interesting, rather than the somewhat tiresome verbiage we might perceive it to be.
\n186. the relation of a king to a state is the same as The long list of parallels is a homiletic trait used by many orators, including those of today. It serves to prepare the audience to accept the ensuing conclusion without further question.
\n187. For this is to follow God Here, Philo expresses a clear and unequivocal statement respecting the nature of the creation and the ordering of the world, worded in the language of classical Greek thought. It is not in conflict with the underlying assumptions of early Rabbinic midrash before the threat of Gnostic heresy made the concept of creation ex nihilo an issue. See also the comment on Spec. Laws 2.151, elements were then separated and placed in harmonious order.
\nHe too can do both This too is echoed in the first paragraph of the Amidah: \u201cthe Creator of all things\u201d (see also the comment on Spec. Laws 4.177, God the great and powerful), as well as at the beginning of the first benediction before the reading of the Shema in the morning: \u201cWho forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace, and creates all things.\u201d
\nequality from inequality See the comment on Spec. Laws 4.74 and on 165, the spirit of equality.
\nHe and His beneficent powers For an explanation of Philo\u2019s description of God\u2019s powers, see the comment on Spec. Laws 1, Title, and its note; see also the comments on 1.45 and on 1.46, The Powers.
\n188. These things good rulers must imitate Philo makes a similar statement in 4.73, where the expression used is mimeisthai Theon, and not as here: eksoimoiwsews ths pros Theon. But from the context, they appear to be expressing the same idea. Colson, in his endnote to 4.188, writes that Philo is undoubtedly thinking of Plato\u2019s Theaet. 176a\u2013b, which he quotes in a different context in Flight 63: \u201cto fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like Him is to become holy, just and wise\u201d (where the Platonic treatise is actually mentioned by name). I think that a closer Platonic parallel is Leg. 716c: \u201cNow God ought to be to us the measure of all things, and not man, as men commonly say \u2026 and he who would be dear to God must, as far as is possible, be like Him and such as he is.\u201d While this may well be so, it is no less so that the idea of imitatio Dei is also well rooted in Jewish tradition (Mek. R. Ish., Be-shallah, Shira, 3:17; B. Shab. 133b).<\/p>\n
Outside the Bible 2<\/p>\n
The Biblical Interpretations of Josephus\u2019s Jewish Antiquities<\/p>\n
Preface to Jewish Antiquities<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
Josephus had originally written his earlier work, Jewish War, in his mother tongue, Aramaic, and only later, with the help of assistants (Ag. Ap. 1.50), since he was not completely at home in Greek, translated it into Greek. His aim in writing Jewish Antiquities, as he states in the essay Against Apion was to correct the ignorance that non-Jews had of Jewish history. In this aim he finds a precedent in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (LXX). He apologetically insists that Jews have nothing to hide in their Scripture. But there is reason to think that the LXX was also intended for Jews, namely the Jews who, by that time in Egypt, had forgotten their Hebrew and who were at home with Greek. Since, by the time that Josephus had completed his Jewish Antiquities in the year 93, a large percentage of the Jews in the Mediterranean world, perhaps the majority, were more familiar with Greek than with Hebrew, he probably also had a Jewish audience in mind. That this is so may be indicated by his statement that those who obey the laws of the Torah will succeed beyond belief. This can refer only to Jews, since these laws are not incumbent upon non-Jews. Thus, Josephus is particularly sensitive to the charge that Jews are aggressive in converting non-Jews to Judaism. Hence, it is not surprising that he omits the circumcision of the Shemites by Simeon and Levi (Ant. 1.340).
\nIn his preface (1.1\u201317) Josephus promises that he will neither add to nor subtract anything from Scripture in his paraphrase. That he does not live up to this is clear on page after page. He also insists that there is nothing unreasonable in Scripture, and he promises to explain, in a future treatise that he apparently never wrote, the rationality of the Torah.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Jewish Antiquities 1\u20134, 3\u20138. Leiden: Brill, 2000.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
4. devastate the truth In the introduction to his Jewish War (1.1\u20132), issued, it is generally thought, in 79\u201380 CE (whereas Jewish Antiquities appeared in 93\u201394), Josephus similarly attacks those who have written accounts of the war against the Romans in that they have misrepresented the facts. In particular, he attacks Justus of Tiberias (Life 336\u201339) for having no scruples about falsehood in his account of the war and for having maligned Josephus himself, though Josephus mentions by name no other writer on the war.
\n5. all the Greeks It appears from this statement that Josephus\u2019s intended audience consists chiefly of non-Jews (so Ant. 1.9, 12; 16.174; 20.262). The person who urged him to write the history was his patron, Epaphroditus, a non-Jew (1.8). That, according to his own statement (20.263), he worked hard to master the Greek language and literature would indicate that he sought an audience that would appreciate this knowledge. Furthermore, that at the close of his work Josephus boasts that no one else would have been equal to the task of composing such a work for the Greek world indicates that his primary audience consisted of non-Jews (20.262). That, however, Josephus\u2019s intended audience also included Jews may be deduced from the fact that in his day, in all probability, Greek was the chief language for a high percentage, perhaps even the majority, of the Jews of the world. As one who had himself become a Diaspora Jew, he might very well hope to reach them and especially to defend himself against the accusations that were constantly being brought against him. That he apologizes for rearranging the order of the biblical narrative with the statement that perhaps \u201cany of my countrymen who read this work should reproach me\u201d (4.197) is an indication the he did expect some Jews to read the work. We can see from his highlighting of certain episodes, for example, the incident of Israel\u2019s sin with the Midianite women (Num. 25:1\u20139; Ant. 4.131\u201355), that he sought to reach Jews who had deviated from the commandments in the Torah. Moreover, only Jews would appreciate the cryptic references to the fall of the Roman Empire in Balaam\u2019s prophecy (4.125) and in Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream (10.210) and, in particular, in the latter passage the invitation to read the book of Daniel.
\ntranslated The Greek word implies interpretation and not merely mechanical translation. This is evident from the fact that in Josephus\u2019s account of the LXX (Ant. 12.39) Ptolemy\u2019s confidant Demetrius advises the king to select men of advanced age who are well versed in the laws and who will consequently be able to make an accurate translation. When the translation had been completed, the Alexandrians before whom they appeared expressed their approval of the elders who had interpreted (literally, \u201cexplained\u201d) the laws and declared that in this state it should remain unaltered.
\nthe Hebrew writings Actually, only Ant. 1.1\u201311.303 is based on the Bible; and these sections are not translations but often are free paraphrases. They add and omit many individual points, large and small, that differ from the biblical original.
\n6. lawgiver The Rabbis would not call Moses \u201cthe lawgiver,\u201d since only God gave the Torah, whereas it came \u201cthrough Moses\u2019s hand.\u201d
\n7. the compass of this account In J.W. 1.17, written perhaps between 79 and 81, Josephus gives a different reason as to why he did not write his comprehensive history, namely that many Jews before him (perhaps Demetrius and Eupolemus) had accurately done so, presumably in Aramaic, and that these works had been translated by certain Greeks into Greek without serious error; but these works are lost.
\n8. Epaphroditus All of Josephus\u2019s works are dedicated to this Epaphroditus, clearly a non-Jew, apparently the person who was noted for his scholarship on Homer and other Greek poets and who is said to have had a library of 30,000 books.
\n10. the second of the Ptolemies Ptolemy II Philadelphus ruled Egypt 283\u2013245 BCE. The fullest account of the translation of the Pentateuch is found in the Letter of Aristeas and is summarized at some length in Josephus (Ant. 12.11\u2013118) and more briefly in Philo (Moses 2.25\u201344) and still more briefly in the Talmud (B. Meg. 9a\u2013b and B. Sof. 1:7\u20138).
\n11. Eleazar Eleazar is the high priest to whom Ptolemy Philadelphus (Let. Aris. 33) wrote, asking that he send to Alexandria six elders from each of the twelve tribes to translate the Pentateuch into Greek for his library.
\nour tradition to hold nothing in secret Josephus is apparently responding to the charge that the Jews are a secret religious society that deliberately refuses to observe the laws of the state and that inculcates hatred toward non-Jews. This charge is satirized by Juvenal (14.100\u2013104): \u201cHaving been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law, and all that Moses handed down in his secret tome, forbidding Jews to point out the way to any not worshiping the same rites, and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain.\u201d
\n12. even now there are many who are eager for knowledge Philo (Moses 2.41) notes that on the anniversary of the completion of the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek, a festival was held on the island of Pharos, off the coast of Alexandria, where the translation had been made, to which not only Jews but also others \u201cwith their whole multitude\u201d came. That Philo had great hopes that the LXX would lead non-Jews to adopt Judaism is clear from his comment on this annual celebration (Moses 2.44), expressing his hope that \u201ceach nation would abandon its peculiar ways and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, would turn to honoring our laws alone.\u201d
\nthe entire Scripture Whereas Ptolemy arranged to have only the Pentateuch translated, Josephus has paraphrased the entire Bible. Though Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.39\u201340) mentions that the Bible consists of the five books of the Pentateuch, thirteen books of prophets, and four books of hymns and precepts, he does not paraphrase several of the prophets, as well as the books of Psalms, Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.
\n14. those who \u2026 do not venture to transgress laws Josephus is probably thinking of Jews, such as the biblical Zimri (Num. 25:14 and Ant. 4.141\u201354) and the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus (13.372\u201383); Anilaeus (leader of a robber band who had an affair with a Parthian general\u2019s wife; 18.340\u201370); and in his own day Tiberius Julius Alexander (20.100)\u2014all of whom deviated in their observance of the laws of the Pentateuch.
\n15. unseemly mythology See also Josephus\u2019s sharp attack on Greek mythology in Ag. Ap. 2.239\u201340, noting that Greek thinkers themselves reduced these beliefs to absurdity: \u201cWho, in fact, is there among the admired sages of Greece who has not censured their most famous poets and their most trusted legislators for sowing in the minds of the masses the first seeds of such notions about the gods? They represent them to be as numerous as they choose, born of one another and engendered in all manner of ways.\u201d
\n17. according to their proper order Elsewhere (Ant. 4.197) Josephus admits that he has rearranged the order of topics in his paraphrase of the Pentateuch, since, as he says, Moses left what he wrote in a scattered condition, just as he had received it from God.
\nneither adding nor omitting anything In making this promise, Josephus was following what he himself writes about the LXX\u2014namely, that when the translation was completed, the chief officers of the community of Alexandria ordered that if anyone would find any addition to or omission from the text of the Pentateuch, he should make it known and correct it (Ant. 12.109). Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.42) declares that not only he but no one else has for long ages past ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable of Scripture. Actually, Josephus has added numerous details and even whole episodes, notably the account of Moses\u2019s campaign in Ethiopia and his marriage to the Ethiopian princess (Ant. 2.238\u201353), while omitting passages that contain incriminating details, such as Jacob\u2019s deception of his father in order to obtain his blessing (Gen. 27), the Judah-Tamar episode (Gen. 38), Moses\u2019s slaying of the Egyptian (Exod. 2:12), and the building of the golden calf (Exod. 32). Various theories have been presented to explain Josephus\u2019s failure to abide by his promise: the phrase \u201cneither adding nor omitting anything\u201d is a stock phrase found in a number of authors, notably Dionysius of Halicarnassus; there is a precedent in the Bible itself for presenting an alternative version, namely the book of Chronicles as compared with the book of Kings; by the precise details he may mean not only the written tradition but also the oral tradition as embodied in midrashim; he was relying on the precedent of the Greek tragedians in dealing with the traditional Greek myths; he relied on the ignorance of his readers. Perhaps it was easier for Josephus simply to omit embarrassing incidents than to reinterpret them, a task the Rabbis had undertaken, since their intended audience did know Scripture.<\/p>\n
Creation<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
Nowhere is Josephus more aware of the non-Jews who constitute a large part of his audience than he is in his paraphrase of the biblical account of creation. It is surely remarkable that in his account of God\u2019s creation of the world (Gen. 1\u20132) in Jewish Antiquities (1.27\u201336), he never even once directly quotes God, whereas the one classical writer, Pseudo-Longinus in his treatise On the Sublime, who paraphrases a passage from the biblical account of creation does quote God\u2019s words. Josephus is clearly trying to present an account that will appeal to rational readers. He thus avoids the inference that God created the world from nothing. He avoids the anthropomorphism and the possible mythological reference that the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters, with its implied portrait of God, possibly reminiscent of the Orphic mythology hovering over the world-egg. He likewise avoids the possible mythological reference to the great sea monsters, since, as he says in his introduction to the whole work (Ant. 1.15), Moses sought to preserve the discourse about him \u201cpure from every unseemly mythology that is found among others.\u201d He is aware of the problem that the text speaks of the days of creation in terms of ordinal numerals and yet speaks of \u201cone day.\u201d He is aware of the theological problem in God\u2019s commandment to the creatures of the sea and the sky to be fruitful and multiply when commandments can be given to humans alone. He is aware of the twofold problem inherent in the text in that God uses the plural \u201clet us make man\u201d and the anthropomorphic implications inherent in God\u2019s plan to make man \u201cafter our image.\u201d He resolves such problems by simply omitting them, even though he has promised the reader (Ant. 1.17) that in his paraphrase of the Bible he will neither add nor omit anything. In some cases, notably in dealing with the text that implies that God worked on the seventh day, he adopts the change made by the Septuagint (LXX), according to tradition, under divine inspiration.
\nThe most remarkable innovation, presaging modern biblical criticism, is Josephus\u2019s solution, in nonphilosophical but practical terms, to the problem of the so-called two accounts of creation, namely that first God created the pattern to be followed in creation and then, in Gen. 2, he filled in the details.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134, 10\u201314. Leiden: Brill, 2000.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
27. founded Josephus uses the verb ektisen (founded, built, brought into being) (this is also the reading of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in their paraphrases for the Bible) for the Hebrew word bara (Gen. 1:1), rather than the LXX\u2019s epoi\u0113sen, since the former implies more clearly \u201ccreation from nothing,\u201d whereas the latter implies \u201ccreation from something.\u201d
\nhad not come into sight Josephus, like Philo (Creation 29) follows the LXX\u2019s rendering of tohu vabohu as \u201cunseen and unformed,\u201d implying perhaps agreement with Plato\u2019s theory of ideas, that prior to the visible world there existed an invisible world.
\na breath from above ran over it Josephus is trying to avoid the anthropomorphism implied by the word \u201chovered\u201d (Gen. 1:2), which the LXX partially eliminates by saying that the breath of God \u201cwas borne\u201d upon the water. The connotation of the word merakhefet is not merely hovering but also brooding, with the image that the world-egg was hatched, as it were, from fluid chaos. Josephus, presumably because he feared that such an image would be regarded as equivalent to the Orphic account of creation, avoids it by using a word that implies only that the breath sped rapidly over the surface of the earth. Josephus says in Ant. 1.15 that Moses kept his words concerning God pure \u201cfrom every unseemly mythology that is among others.\u201d
\n28. designating evening and morning the beginning of light and its cessation Josephus has omitted reference to Gen. 1:5, which declares that \u201cthere was evening and there was morning, one day,\u201d a passage that presents difficulties because the Jewish day did not end at sunrise (and so it is not possible to understand this clause as meaning that the evening and the morning formed the first day) and because it is hard to understand how there could be evening before the day on which light was created. Josephus avoids these problems by omitting this difficult statement altogether and by noting merely that God named the dawn of the light morning and its cessation evening, as does the Bible.
\n29. to give an account In many other places Josephus refers to a projected work, apparently never completed, on \u201cCustoms and Causes.\u201d In 20.268 he indicates that it was to be in four books and that it would deal with the opinions that Jews have concerning God and his essence, as well as the reasons for the commandments. That Josephus tells us that the treatise was to be in four books is an indication that he had prepared some kind of outline for the work. Philo (Creation 35) explains that the expression \u201cone\u201d rather than \u201cfirst\u201d day is due to the uniqueness of the intelligible world and to its having therefore a natural kinship to the number \u201cone.\u201d The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 3:9) explain that the reason is that God was then the only one in his universe, inasmuch as the angels were not created until the second day.
\n30. fastening ice around it Josephus adds information to the meager and even telegraphic account of the Bible in order to make it more intelligible to his Greek audience. The Hebrew (Gen. 1:6) that says \u201clet there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide the waters from the waters\u201d is obscure. Josephus explains that what God did was to set the heavens above the universe and to congeal ice about it. He thus explains the origin of rain. That the heavens contained water is also seen in Gen. Rab. 4:7, which interprets the word \u201cheaven\u201d (shamayim) as a combination of two words, sa mayim (\u201ccarries water\u201d).
\n31. on the third day Josephus omits the biblical statement here, as elsewhere in his paraphrase of Gen. 1, that God saw that what he had created was good, perhaps because this would raise the question as to why there is evil in the world.
\nhe established the earth From the biblical account (Gen. 1:9) one might conclude that the earth existed before creation, since, according to it God says, \u201cLet the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.\u201d Josephus resolves this ambiguity by stating explicitly that on the third day God established the earth, pouring the sea around it. Josephus comes very close to Ovid\u2019s formulation (Metam. 1.36\u201337) that \u201cwhoever of the gods it was who created the world\u201d bade the waters to \u201csurround the shores of the encircled earth.\u201d
\n32. he sent forth \u2026 the creatures that swim and fly Compare the dictum of the 3rd-century Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (B. RH 11a): \u201cAll creatures of the creation were brought into being with their full stature, their full capacities, and their full beauty.\u201d
\ncreatures that swim Fearing that his readers might regard as mythical the great sea monsters (the Leviathan and its mate, according to the Rabbinic tradition, B. Avod. Zar. 3b) mentioned in the Hebrew account of creation (Gen. 1:21), a view that would certainly be held by the Epicureans in his audience and that would remind readers of the sea monster to which the mythical Andromeda (Varro, Menippeae 406) was exposed, Josephus says merely that God created the creatures that swim.
\nincreasing and multiplying their kind Josephus omits the blessing (Gen. 1:22) that God gives to the creatures of the sea and the sky and that is parallel to the blessing (1:28) that God gives to the human race, since this is in the form of a commandment that would hardly be applicable to fish and birds.
\nhe also fashioned humanity The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 83\u201387) realized the problem inherent in the use of the plural \u201clet us make man in our image\u201d (Gen. 1:26). They explain that before creating humans God consulted with the angels. Philo (Creation 72) inferred from this passage a plurality of creators, just as Plato (Tim. 41c, 42e) spoke of the creator as having collaborators. Indeed, the classical Christian commentators generally found in the use of this plural an allusion to the Trinity. In the list of the changes (B. Meg. 9a) that, according to the Rabbis, the translators of the LXX were inspired by God to make, this verse is changed to \u201cI shall make man,\u201d presumably to prevent the reader from concluding that more than one power created humankind. Elsewhere (Ag. Ap. 2.192) Josephus states that God performed his work of creation without assistants, for he has no need of them. Moreover, the classical Jewish commentators were well aware that God\u2019s words (Gen. 1:26), \u201clet us make man after our likeness,\u201d had anthropomorphic implications, and they sought to soften these by explaining that \u201cafter our likeness\u201d means \u201cwith discernment and understanding\u201d (Rashi) or that it refers to those respects in which the human soul is similar to God (Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides). Josephus avoids this difficulty by omitting the phrase completely and by simply reporting that God formed humankind. There is an apparent contradiction between the biblical statement here that God created male and female of humanity and the separate later creation of Eve. Josephus avoids this problem by stating here that God created \u201cthe human\u201d (ton anthr\u014dpon, singular).
\n33 Josephus avoids the problem inherent in the Hebrew text (Gen. 2:2) that states that God finished the work of creation on the seventh day, since this would imply that God worked on the seventh day and would contradict the immediately following clause that God rested on the seventh day. The LXX avoids the problem by reading that God finished his work on the sixth day; and, to be sure, according to Rabbinic tradition (B. Meg. 9a), this is one of the changes that the translators of the LXX adopted under divine inspiration. Indeed, this is one of changes found in the Peshitta, Jub. 2:16, and Philo\u2019s Questions and Answers on Genesis. The Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 2:2 avoids the problem by asserting that the work of creation was completed by the seventh day.
\nthis word means \u201crest\u201d in the language of the Hebrews In a number of other places Josephus indicates his knowledge of Hebrew through citing Hebrew etymologies. Whereas the Hebrew text (Gen. 2:2) declares that God rested from all the work that he had done, with no implication that he would later resume his work, Josephus, in stating that he took a rest from his activities, implies that he intended to resume them. So also Philo: \u201cMoses does not give the name of rest to mere inactivity\u201d (Cherubim 87).
\n34 Josephus may well have been aware of the problem of the so-called twin accounts of creation in Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. Thus he omits any direct paraphrase of Gen. 2:4\u20136, which is regarded by some as the beginning of a second account of creation. He avoids the issue by stating here explicitly that in Gen. 2:4\u20136 Moses is merely giving the details of God\u2019s formation of humans. He also explains here that in Gen. 2 Moses begins to interpret nature, just as he had declared in his preface (Ant. 1.18) that much of Moses\u2019s work is devoted to natural philosophy. The term \u201cnatural philosophy\u201d is familiar from Aristotle (Sens. 442b25; Metaph. 988b27) and from Epicurus (Epistles 1\u20132). Here Josephus is following the lead of Philo (Creation 29), who had stated the solution in philosophical terms familiar from Plato\u2019s theory of ideas, namely that Gen. 1 describes God\u2019s creation of patterns or ideas and that Gen. 2 describes God\u2019s creation of the details in the visible world based on these ideas.
\nhe injected breath and soul into him Josephus apparently felt that the statement (Gen. 2:7) that God breathed into man\u2019s nostrils the breath of life was too anthropomorphic.
\n\u201cred,\u201d since, indeed, he had come into being from the red earth The Akkadian adamatu (dark, red earth) suggests that the Hebrew word adamah (earth) may be derived from adam (red). On Adam being created from red earth and as having the color of true virgin soil, see Philo, Creation 137.
\n35. he established names In Josephus it is God and not Adam, as in the Bible (Gen. 2:20), who gives names to the animals. The notion that one man had assigned names by his spontaneous declaration seemed naive and ridiculous, at least to the Epicureans (e.g., Lucretius 5.1041\u2013). Thus Josephus avoided this possible objection by having God, not Adam, name the animals.
\nhe \u2026 fashioned a woman Josephus changes the order of biblical events here by placing the creation of the first woman (Gen. 2:22) almost immediately after the creation of the first man. In connecting Adam\u2019s failure to find a mate from the animals and God\u2019s creation of Eve, Josephus makes explicit what is only implicit in the Hebrew text (so also Gen. Rab. 17:4; Avot R. Nat. B 8).<\/p>\n
The Flood<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
Josephus, as a critical historian, was clearly concerned with what his audience, non-Jews and Jews alike, would think of the historicity of the great Flood and of Noah (Gen. 6\u20139). He was likewise concerned with the theological questions that they would ask: God\u2019s justification in destroying all life, with few exceptions; the apparent lack of attempts by God and Noah to get humans to repent and to improve the world; the justification in allowing Noah and his family to be saved; the reason why Noah offered a sacrifice upon emerging from the ark; and the explanation of the unusually long life of Noah and of people of that era.
\nThe Rabbinic tradition, having perfect faith in the revelation of everything in the Pentateuch, is not concerned with supplying external evidence of the historicity of Noah. Josephus, however, cites the evidence of four non-Jewish historians, who corroborate the biblical account. He even, uniquely, like a modern historian, refers the reader to archeological remains of the boat in Armenia.
\nHow wicked were humans so as to justify the flood? In his Jewish Antiquities (1.73\u2013108), Josephus explains that their outrages were comparable to those of the giants, as reported by the Greeks. By omitting God\u2019s repentance, Josephus solves the theological problem of how God\u2014who is perfect\u2014could, anthropomorphically, have repented that he had created humankind in the first place. As to how Noah could have remained silent without attempting to convince his fellow mortals, Josephus speaks of him as a preacher and of his being persecuted by his contemporaries. Finally, Josephus is original in offering three reasons why the patriarchs lived so long: their healthy diet, their virtue, and their consequent ability to make accurate predictions in astronomy.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJosephus\u2019s Portrait of Noah and Its Parallels in Philo, Pseudo-Philo\u2019s Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim.\u201d Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 55 (1988): 31\u201357.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
73. outrages The Greek word that Josephus uses for the outrages committed by humans is hybristes, so familiar in Greek tragedy in referring to overweening pride.
\n74. tried to persuade them The portrayal of Noah as a preacher is Josephus\u2019s addition. Rabbinic tradition (B. Sanh. 108b; Gen. Rab. 9:15) also portrays Noah as warning his contemporaries of an impending catastrophe, only to have them deride him. The theme of the persecution of Noah by his contemporaries is also found in Rabbinic literature (Gen. Rab. 32:8).
\nhe withdrew from the land The detail that Noah emigrated to another country is unique with Josephus. He may have introduced it to explain how the ark had come to rest in Armenia, whereas Noah had lived in Palestine.
\n75. because of his righteousness Josephus, like the Bible (Gen. 6:9), refers to Noah\u2019s righteousness, but he omits the biblical statement that he was perfect. Apparently, to make such a statement would raise a question as to where Moses and the Torah marked any advance. Indeed, Philo (Abraham 36) and Rabbi Johanan ben Nappaha (B. Sanh. 108a) remark that the biblical statement that Noah was perfect in his generation indicates that he was good only in comparison with the people of his time. That there was a debate among the Rabbis on this issue is clear from Resh Lakish (B. Sanh. 108a) asserting that Noah deserves even greater praise, since he was righteous in a wicked generation.
\nCreate another race Josephus\u2019s statement that God intended to create another race free of knavery, not found in Gen. 6:7, has its parallel in Ovid (Metam. 1.250\u201352), who similarly notes Zeus\u2019s promise to replace the wicked human race with another race of wondrous origin, as well as in Aeschylus\u2019s Prom. 249\u201349.
\n92. still today they display its remains Josephus (Ant. 20.24\u201325) identifies the landing place of Noah with the place that in his own day possessed the remains of Noah\u2019s ark, \u201cwhich to this day are shown to those who are curious to see them.\u201d
\n93. all those who have recorded the histories of the barbarians While Josephus is eager to establish the historicity of the Flood he does not actually equate Noah with Deucalion of the Greek flood, as indeed Philo (Rewards 23) does.
\nBerosus the Chaldean Berosus (330\u2013250 BCE) was a priest in Babylonia who wrote in Greek a history of Babylonia that Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.128\u201353) cites at length.
\n94. Hieronymus the Egyptian This historian is otherwise unknown.
\nMnaseas This historian flourished around 200 BCE in Patara in Asia Minor and was the author of a collection of mythological tales.
\nNicolaus of Damascus An adviser to Herod, Nicolaus (ca. 64 BCE to the beginning of the 1st century CE) wrote a history of the world in 144 books, now lost except for fragments, that served as a major source for Josephus.
\n95. many took refuge and were saved Josephus\u2019s statement that many were saved at the time of the Flood contradicts the biblical and Josephus\u2019s own view (Ant. 1.76\u201377) that all of humankind was obliterated in the Flood except for Noah and his family.
\n96. Noah \u2026 burnt sacrifices and begged God When Noah emerges from the ark, Gen. 8:20 declares simply that he built an altar unto the LORD; but it gives no reason for the sacrifice that Noah then proceeds to offer. Philo (QG 2.50 on Gen. 8:20) states that it was an act of gratitude. The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 34:9) conclude that Noah was able to deduce it logically from God having commanded him to take into the ark more clean than unclean animals, the surplus being presumably for the sacrifices later to be offered. Josephus, here attempting to give a reasonable explanation, states that Noah offered a sacrifice to beseech God not to send another flood. The figure of Noah gains in stature in Josephus in that he does not sacrifice to God silently, as in the Bible (Gen. 8:20), but is concerned with the future of the human race and, like Abraham (18:23\u201330), reasons with God here to maintain the primitive good order of nature and not to send another calamity upon humankind. Noah thus becomes a champion of humankind.
\n106. great year The great year was supposed to equal from 12,000 to 15,000 years.
\n107. Manetho This Egyptian priest lived in the 3rd century BCE and wrote a history of Egypt in Greek that is cited by Josephus throughout book 1 of Against Apion.
\nMochus Living in perhaps the 2nd century BCE, Mochus wrote a history of Phoenicia in Phoenician.
\n108. Hesiod Active in the 8th century BCE, Hesiod wrote a poem, Works and Days, containing moral precepts, and a poem, Theogony, on the genealogy of the gods.
\nHecataeus A historian and geographer who flourished ca. 500 BCE in Miletus, Hecataeus was the chief predecessor of Herodotus.
\nHellanicus A chronologist who lived in Mitylene in the 5th century BCE, Hellanicus wrote a number of monographs on the history of various parts of Greece.
\nAcusilaus In an attempt to correct Hesiod, Acusilaus, who lived in Argos in the 5th century BCE, wrote Genealogies.
\nEphorus Ephorus of Cyme in Asia Minor, who lived in the 4th century BCE, wrote a history of all of Greece.
\nLet each one judge as is pleasing to him Josephus frequently, when he mentions data, especially miracles, that he realizes many of his readers will doubt as preposterous, leaves it up to the reader to decide.<\/p>\n
Abraham Journeys to Canaan and Egypt<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
This passage from Josephus\u2019s Jewish Antiquities (1.154\u201368) retells the biblical episodes of Abraham\u2019s journey from Mesopotamia to Canaan, at God\u2019s command, and his trip from there to Egypt to avoid famine in his new home (Gen. 12:10\u201319). The selection illustrates Josephus\u2019s importance as a sophisticated commentator on the Hebrew Bible. In Genesis, when God commands Abraham to leave his home and set out for Canaan (12:1\u20139), the Bible does not offer a proof that God truly exists. However, Josephus, aware that his worldly hellenized audience, both Jewish and non-Jewish, would expect Abraham to demand such proof, here not only demonstrates God\u2019s existence, but offers an utterly original proof of it, found nowhere else in Jewish or non-Jewish literature of this time: namely, that the world itself testifies to its Creator\u2019s existence, because even the seemingly eccentric behavior of the stars and planets turns out to be orderly and predictable.
\nMoreover, Josephus\u2019s Abraham is very different from the biblical Abraham in his descent to Egypt. In the Bible, fearful of his reception by the Egyptians, Abraham tells Sarah his wife to pretend that she is only his sister\u2014and in consequence is given much wealth by the Egyptians in hopes of an alliance. Here Abraham is seen as confidently ready to engage the most learned of the Egyptians in argument, with the understanding that whoever emerged victorious would convert the other to his point of view. Finally, he introduces the Egyptians to arithmetic and astronomy, of which the Egyptians had previously been ignorant and of which they now become the outstanding scholars in the ancient world. Critical historian that he is, Josephus innovates by citing nonhistorians to support his statements.
\nIn his portrayal of Abraham Josephus is attempting to disprove the contention of such influential non-Jewish intellectuals as Apion (Ag. Ap. 2.135) that the Jews had not produced any geniuses, inventors in arts and crafts, or eminent sages. Josephus himself (2.148) quotes the Greek writer Apollonius Molon as saying that the Jews are the only people who have contributed no useful invention to civilization. Josephus\u2019s Abraham is the founder of both Egyptian lore and Greek wisdom.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. \u201cAbraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus.\u201d Transactions of the American Philological Association 99 (1968): 143\u201356.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\nReed, A. Y. \u201cAbraham as Chaldean Scientist and Father of the Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.154\u201368, and the Discourse about Astronomy\/Astrology.\u201d Journal for the Study of Judaism 35 (2004): 119\u201358.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
154. Abram At this stage in the biblical narrative, Abraham is called Abram and his wife, Sarai. Later on (Gen. 17) God renames both of them as Abraham and Sarah, as a sign of his promise to them that they should be the ancestors of \u201ca multitude of nations\u201d (17:5).
\npersuasive to his listeners The Greek for \u201clisteners\u201d here is used especially of students who listen to lectures in the philosophical schools. In presenting Abraham as a philosopher, Josephus may be capitalizing on the view, still current in his time, of the Jews as a race of philosophers.
\n155. the first who dared to declare Other contemporary sources also argue that Abraham arrived at the idea of one God through his own reasoning about the heavenly bodies and the Creator who directed them. In Rabbinic midrash, Abraham arrives at his proof by observing how the elements subdue one another: water subdues fire and, in turn, is subdued by earth, which is dried up by the sun, which is obscured by clouds, and so on, so that finally only God, who made all these elements and heavenly bodies, is worthy of worship (Gen. Rab. 38.13).
\ncraftsman Josephus here uses the word \u201cdemiurge,\u201d which is so prominent in Plato, the most popular philosopher during the Hellenistic period (see especially Tim. 40C).
\n156. dependent upon the sun Josephus\u2019s Abraham argues that irregularities in the movements of the heavenly bodies show that they operate not by their own will but by that of \u201ctheir commander\u201d (i.e., God). Abraham\u2019s connection with the stars is well documented in Jewish literature. A Greco-Jewish contemporary of Josephus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, states that Abraham discovered both astrology and Chaldean science (astronomy) (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.3). Another Greco-Jewish writer, Pseudo-Orpheus, similarly speaks of a unique figure (presumably Abraham) who was expert in following the course of the sun and the movements of the spheres around the earth (Clement, Strom. 5.14.123.2; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.13.50). In these passages, Abraham combats the view held by the Chaldeans that the celestial phenomena themselves cause everything to happen. Philo makes a similar point (Migration 178\u201379, 181). The Rabbinic tradition (B. Yoma 28b) also notes that Abraham could perform great astronomical speculations and consequently determine the exact hour of the afternoon prayer. The T. Kid. 5.17, commenting on Gen. 24:1, \u201cThe LORD had blessed Abraham in all things,\u201d explains that He blessed him with great knowledge of astrology.
\n157. the Chaldeans and the other Mesopotamians fell into discord against him Abraham is presented by Josephus as someone persecuted and ready to be a martyr for his faith. This seems to contradict the biblical view (Gen. 12:1; Acts 7:2\u20133), as well as Josephus\u2019s previous statement (Ant. 1.154) that Abraham left Chaldea at God\u2019s bidding. Pseudo-Philo describes in vivid detail the persecution of Abraham by the Chaldeans and, in particular, his being cast into a fiery furnace (L.A.B. 6.11\u201318). The Midrash (Gen. Rab. 38.13) describes the trial of Abraham before the wicked Nimrod.
\n158. Berosus A Babylonian writer active during the 3rd century BCE.
\nexpert in heavenly matters The early Greek philosophers, notably Thales, are depicted as well versed in science, especially astronomy. Abraham conforms to this model. The 4th-century CE Firmicus Maternus couples Abraham with Orpheus as an astrologer and refers to him as defining the position of the moon and of the sun (Math. 4, prooemium 5).
\n159. Hecataeus Hecataeus of Abdera was a historian who flourished ca. 300 BCE. There is considerable dispute as to the authenticity of the work on Abraham attributed to him here.
\n160. in another book We apparently have all the works composed by Josephus; this book is unknown, and if it was ever written, no longer exists.
\nDamascus A 1st-century CE Roman historian, Pompeius Trogus, says that the Jews originated in Damascus and that Abraham and Israel were kings of that city.
\nvillage called \u2026 \u201cAbram\u2019s dwelling place\u201d Pseudo-Philo asserts that after Abraham was saved from a fiery furnace, the place was named after him (L.A.B. 6.18).
\n161. he would become their disciple if they were found to be better or he would convert them According to the Bible (Gen. 12:10), the only reason Abraham went down to Egypt was the famine in Canaan. Josephus models his portrait of Abraham on the 6th-century BCE sage Solon, who traveled to Egypt and was awed by the wisdom of the Egyptians; and on Pythagoras (6th-century BCE), who, according to Isocrates, became a disciple of the priests there, studying their sacrifices and cult practices and later introducing their philosophy to the Greeks. It is in the spirit of Hellenistic philosophic disputations that Abraham is here said to be ready to adopt the Egyptian priests\u2019 doctrines if he finds them superior to his own, or, if he should win the debate, to convert them to his beliefs. This portrayal of the journey to Egypt has no parallel in any other account of Abraham. The Rabbis speak of him as a missionary, proceeding systematically to make converts to belief in the one God; however, they portray this activity in connection, not with Egyptian wise men, but rather with the visitors to his tent (Gen. Rab. 39.14). He is so effective at this task that he succeeds in making God known as king of the earth as well as of heaven (Sifre Deut. 313 on Deut. 32:10).
\n165. he associated with the most erudite of the Egyptians Whereas in the Bible (Gen. 12:20), Pharaoh returns Sarah to Abraham and sends him on his way, here Abraham remains and consorts with Egyptian scholars.
\n167. arithmetic and \u2026 astronomy Both Plato and Isocrates in the 4th century BCE emphasized the importance of mathematics not only for its practical value but also as a training for sharpening the mind. Astronomy was regarded, as we see in Plato\u2019s system of higher education in his Republic, as the queen of the sciences. Astronomy was a science of which the Egyptians had previously been ignorant and which was to become the most popular of the four branches of mathematics in Hellenistic times\u2014the one that aroused the most curiosity because of the practical importance of astrology. Josephus thus presents Abraham as the one who taught the Egyptians the very sciences for which they later became so famous. Josephus does not portray Abraham as teaching the Egyptians about the one God, presumably because this would expose him to the charge of seeking to make converts. The Romans were particularly sensitive about this issue, as we see from the Jews having been expelled from Rome three times for attempting missionary activities: in 139 BCE, in 19 CE, and in the middle of the 1st century CE.<\/p>\n
The Akedah<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
The first thing that strikes us about Josephus\u2019s version of the Akedah (Genesis 22) episode in his Jewish Antiquities (1.222\u201336) is its very length: 2.86 times as long as the biblical narrative in Hebrew and 2.27 times as long as the Septuagint\u2019s (LXX) account. This is probably due to the importance of the episode in the midrashic tradition and also because Josephus apparently felt that he had to answer those quarrelsome critics who belittled the story. He felt that he had to reply to those who were presumably horrified by Abraham\u2019s readiness to sacrifice his own son, Isaac.
\nJosephus clearly had in mind a comparison with Euripides\u2019s drama Iphigenia at Aulis, where a father similarly pondered whether to sacrifice his child. But whereas in Euripides the goddess Artemis, to whom the sacrifice is made, is spoken of as rejoicing in human sacrifices, Josephus, eager to answer the blood libel against Jews that was circulating in the 1st century CE, stresses that God did not long for human blood. Josephus significantly sought to leave Isaac \u201cunscathed,\u201d that is, \u201cnot suffering\u201d and \u201cemotionless,\u201d values that coincide with those of the Stoics. In a very significant addition, Isaac is said to be 25 years old, not a lad as in the Bible but rather a mature man who is able to make a deliberate choice, which diminishes the horror, and who rushes to the altar. Surely the most striking element in Josephus\u2019s version is his omission of the most important word in the biblical account, akedah (binding), perhaps because he was concerned lest the binding be construed as evidence of Isaac\u2019s reluctance or be incriminating for Abraham.
\nJosephus also omits consideration of the problem of theodicy, so important in the Rabbinic treatment of the episode. The convenient appearance of a ram to be sacrificed in place of Isaac seemed too much for a rationalizing Greek mind, and so Josephus clearly implies that it had always been there.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJosephus as a Biblical Interpreter: The Aqedah.\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review 75 (1984\u201385): 212\u201352.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJosephus\u2019s Portrait of Isaac.\u201d Revista di storia et letteratura religiosa 29 (1993): 3\u201333.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
222. his only child This is the reading of the Hebrew. The LXX, which Josephus usually follows, has \u201cbeloved,\u201d presumably because the translators were troubled by Isaac actually not being Abraham\u2019s only son. Philo (Abraham 168), combining both the Hebrew and LXX versions, speaks of Isaac as Abraham\u2019s \u201conly\u201d and \u201cbeloved\u201d son.
\nthreshold of old age Josephus strikingly uses the same phrase that Homer (Il. 24.487) employs when Priam addresses Achilles, begging him to return his son Hector\u2019s body; he reminds him at the height of the pathetic mode of address, that Achilles\u2019s father is as old as Priam \u201con the deadly threshold of old age.\u201d
\na gift from God Apparently, to judge from Philo\u2019s comment (Abraham 178), there were \u201cquarrelsome critics\u201d who did not consider Abraham\u2019s action in connection with the sacrifice of Isaac to be great or wonderful; and Josephus is therefore particularly concerned to stress Abraham\u2019s faith during the episode.
\nattention to his ancestors Significantly, the very first quality of Isaac\u2019s character that Josephus sees fit to mention is precisely the one, veneration for one\u2019s ancestors, that both his Hellenistic Greek and Roman audience would have appreciated the most.
\nexhibiting zeal for the worship of God An account such as this of Abraham\u2019s readiness to sacrifice his own son might well have aroused horror in his pagan readers. The philosopher Theophrastus, Aristotle\u2019s student and successor, in a passage otherwise very complimentary to the Jews, since he calls them philosophers by race, may have had the Akedah in mind when he says that \u201cthe Syrians, of whom the Jews constitute a part, also now sacrifice live victims according to their old mode of sacrifice; if one ordered us to sacrifice in the same way we would have recoiled from the entire business.\u201d
\n223. his own happiness It is ironic that in this brief account of the Akedah Josephus on five occasions uses either the noun for happiness, the verb \u201cto be happy,\u201d or the adverb \u201chappily,\u201d employing them with reference to Abraham\u2019s happiness three times and Isaac\u2019s twice, whereas both had been on the very edge of unspeakable disaster. There is a similar irony in Euripides\u2019s Iphigenia at Aulis, with its comparable situation of a father pondering whether to sacrifice his child, where the chorus speaks of \u201cthe great happiness of the great.\u201d
\nunscathed There is particular irony in Abraham seeking to leave his son \u201cunscathed,\u201d for the word that Josephus uses here has two very different meanings: \u201cnot suffering\u201d and \u201cemotionless\u201d\u2014both of which are actually applicable to Isaac. The term \u201cunscathed\u201d is a particularly common Stoic term for freedom from emotion. This is a prime example where Josephus makes Jewish values coincide with those of the Stoics.
\ntrial of his piety What follows is, in effect, a drama, in form somewhat like the book of Job or Euripides\u2019s Hippolytus. It commences with a prologue, in which God appears to Abraham; then comes the play proper, so to speak, containing a dialogue between Abraham and Isaac; and in an epilogue God commends Abraham and predicts the glorious future of his descendants.
\nenumerated The Bible (Gen. 22:1) begins the narrative of this test of Abraham by God with the vague words \u201cafter these things.\u201d Josephus, in typical midrashic fashion, clarifies this by enumerating the benefits that God had bestowed upon Abraham and thus justifies the test. The implication is that having given these benefits to Abraham, God was justified in withdrawing them.
\n224. Mount Morion The Hebrew text is vaguer in having God tell Abraham to offer his sacrifice \u201cupon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you\u201d (Gen. 22:2). The LXX, which Josephus seems to be following for the most part in this pericope, has \u201cto the lofty land,\u201d with no mention of Moriah, perhaps because moria in Greek means \u201cfolly.\u201d Josephus thus avoids the possible sneer that having Abraham take his son to a mountain of folly would evoke from Greek readers. Josephus stresses the connection of Moriah with the Temple at a later point in his history (Ant. 7.333), where he states that David purchased a site for the Temple in the very place where Abraham had brought his son Isaac to sacrifice him and where he refers the reader to his earlier account. But in his eagerness to avoid theological issues as much as possible, Josephus omits a direct statement causally connecting the Akedah with these sacrifices.
\nburnt offering This episode is presented by Josephus as a true sacrifice and a cultic act, bathed in a liturgical atmosphere, with scrupulous observance of the rites, such as we find also in the targumic version of the passage.
\n225. judging it just to disobey God under no circumstances One would have expected, as we find in Kierkegaard\u2019s Fear and Trembling, that Abraham would have had some doubts about the sacrifice. According to the midrash (Tanhuma Shelah 27), Abraham did not have any doubts but still was afraid that he would not stand up to the test the next time. In Josephus, however, we read categorically that Abraham thought that nothing could justify disobedience to God.
\nconcealed from his wife Josephus adds that Abraham told no one in his household, not even his wife Sarah, about his resolve to sacrifice Isaac, lest they should attempt to hinder him from attending to God\u2019s service. To be sure, Philo (Abraham 170) also adds that Abraham told no one of the divine command; but Josephus is unique in giving the reason for this silence and thus stressing Abraham\u2019s virtue. Josephus may well have sought to avoid the inevitable equation in this respect of Abraham with Agamemnon, who, according to Euripides (Iph. au. 98), attempted to deceive his wife Clytemnestra by writing a letter to her asking her to send their daughter Iphigenia to be married to Achilles, while his real intention was to sacrifice her to the goddess Artemis. Although this contrast between Abraham and Agamemnon is an argumentum ex silentio, it becomes more plausible when it is coupled with other parallels between Josephus and Euripides\u2019s Iphigenia at Aulis.
\n226. upon which King David later built the Temple On the identification of the Temple Mount with the place where Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac see Gen. Rab. 55:7. In his statement that the Temple was built on the site of the Akedah, Josephus avoids stating that David built the Temple on Mount Moriah because Abraham had bound his son there; in fact, he goes out of his way to say (Ant. 7.333) that \u201cit happened\u201d that the Temple was built on the very place where the Akedah had occurred. The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 55:9), of course, stress the causal relationship of the two events. In identifying the site of the Akedah with the Temple Mount, Josephus may have had in mind an association of the act that Abraham was about to accomplish and the liturgical sacrifices of the Temple, notably the paschal sacrifice. Hence, one is tempted to suggest that he thought of the Akedah as occurring on the fifteenth of Nisan, the first day of Passover, as does Jub. 18:3.
\n227. Isaac, who was in his twenty-fifth year This is a major addition to the biblical account of the Akedah. The Bible (Gen. 22:5) refers to Isaac as a lad; Philo (Abraham 176) refers to him as a child. According to Jub. 17:15 Isaac was 23. His age at the time of the Akedah is variously given in Rabbinic literature (37, 36, 27, 26). According to the Adler manuscript of Gen. Rab. 56:8 he was 26. The Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 22:1 declares that he was 37. Josephus mentions his age presumably because he considered it important to make it clear that Isaac was not a mere lad but a grown man able to make a deliberate choice. This is particularly important to Josephus in view of Iphigenia, with whom Isaac would probably be compared by his Greek readers, being depicted as a young girl scarcely of marriageable age, considerably younger apparently than 25, perhaps no more than 12 to 14 years old. Josephus wishes to stress that Isaac\u2019s action in submitting enthusiastically to sacrifice is the pious decision of a mature man. That Isaac is a grown man who acts deliberately diminishes the horror that such a story would arouse in Josephus\u2019s readers, to judge from Lucretius\u2019s comments (1.101) in his retelling of the parallel story of Iphigenia
\nwas setting up the altar The drama here is increased by virtue of Isaac constructing the altar for his own sacrifice in Josephus\u2019s version, whereas in the Bible Abraham builds the altar for the sacrifice (Gen. 22:9).
\n228. things were ready Missing from Josephus is the most important word in the biblical account, aqed (to bind)\/akedah (binding) (Gen. 22:9), a hapax legomenon in the Bible, that is featured in later Rabbinic references to this incident (e.g., B. RH 16a). Perhaps Josephus omits it because he was concerned lest the binding be construed as evidence of Isaac\u2019s reluctance. Alternatively, the physical binding of Isaac would probably have seemed too much for a Greek audience and would have been incriminating for Abraham. Philo, too, omits any mention of the actual binding, although he at least does describe Abraham as placing Isaac on the altar (Abraham 176), whereas this detail also is omitted by Josephus.
\nhe said to his son The Rabbis (Gen. Rab. 56:15) emphasize Abraham\u2019s address to God, in which he asserts that although he could have argued against the divine decree, he did not do so. Such an appeal is fraught with the problem of theodicy. Josephus omits this, in line with his effort to avoid theological problems, which, as we have noted, he apparently intended to deal with in a separate work (Ant. 1.25; etc.). Instead, Josephus invents Abraham\u2019s dramatic address to his son of the type that we find in the progymnasmatic rhetorical exercises of Seneca the Elder.
\nsuccessor of my realm It is especially dramatic to have Abraham recall his prayers for a son who would grow to manhood and become his heir, while, paradoxically, he is about to place Isaac on the altar.
\n229. I am giving you up Josephus views the sacrifice as a return to God. Similarly, Philo, Unchangeable 4, and Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. 32:2.
\n230. out of the course of nature There is clearly a lacuna in the Greek, and the phrase \u201cout of the course of nature\u201d should be supplied. This trait of being born in an extraordinary way and leaving life in a similarly extraordinary way is common in biographies of Greek and Roman heroes (e.g., Heracles, Theseus, Oedipus, and Romulus). Josephus most dramatically mentions Isaac\u2019s good birth at the moment that Abraham is about to sacrifice him.
\n231. soul This is an allusion to the immortality of the soul. Compare Plato, Apol. 41c.
\n232. rushed to the altar Josephus heightens the heroism of Isaac in having him rush upon the altar, thus presenting a more favorable comparison with Iphigenia. In this glorious scene, wholly invented by Josephus, Isaac, when told of his father\u2019s intention to sacrifice him, matches the supreme faith of his father by receiving his words bravely and joyfully. Similarly, in Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 22:10, Isaac tells his father: \u201cBind me properly lest I tremble from the affliction of my soul.\u201d
\n233. he called upon Abraham by name In Josephus it is God himself rather than, as in Gen. 22:11, an angel who addresses Abraham and produces a ram to take the place of the sacrificial human victim, presumably because the subject was too important to be left to even the best of God\u2019s deputies. So also Philo (Abraham 176) says that God \u201cstopped the deed halfway with a voice from the air.\u201d
\nnot because he longed for human blood In this remarkable addition to the biblical account, God himself presents the apology that it was from no craving for human blood that he had given the order to Abraham. In this God would seem to be in direct contrast to Artemis, who, according to the chorus (whether as the voice of the poet himself or the average spectator) in Euripides\u2019s Iph. au. 1524\u201325, \u201crejoices in human sacrifices.\u201d Similarly, in connection with Jephthah\u2019s sacrifice of his daughter, Josephus (Ant. 5.266), in an extrabiblical addition, remarks that such a sacrifice was neither sanctioned by law nor pleasing to God. To judge from such writers as Lucretius (1.101), there were pagans who could not accept the idea that the gods delighted in blood. Josephus, perhaps because Jews had been charged with, in effect, a blood libel by Damocritus (in Suidas) and Apion (in Ag. Ap. 2.91\u201396), goes to great lengths to demonstrate in this speech, put into the mouth of God rather than an angel as in Gen. 22:11, that the God of the Jews does not crave human blood. Josephus here stresses the difference between the purpose of sacrificing children in pagan mythology, which was for the sake of the country, and Abraham\u2019s motive in the case of Isaac.
\n235. he predicted Josephus\u2019s fullest statement, which is made here, of God\u2019s promise of the supremacy that Abraham\u2019s descendants will exercise is found in God\u2019s remarks to Abraham before the appearance of the ram at the climax of the Akedah, in other words in a purely religious rather than a political context. Josephus\u2019s Roman hosts would have resented a political context (see Ant. 1.185, 191).
\n236. God brought forth a ram from obscurity The scene of the ram caught in a thicket by its horns may have seemed grotesque and too much of a miracle for a rationalizing Greek mind. Hence, Josephus omits this and states merely that God brought the ram from obscurity into view, with the clear implication that it had always been there. In the 3rd-century Dura synagogue painting and in the 6th-century Beth Alpha synagogue the ram is not caught in the thicket by its horns but stands quietly next to, or is tethered to, a tree, as if it had always been there, perhaps reflecting the Rabbinic tradition (M. Avot 5:6) that it had been created at twilight on the eve of the Sabbath of creation for its future use.
\nhaving sacrificed Josephus does not explicitly tell us, as does the Bible (Gen. 22:13), that Abraham offered the ram in place of his son, perhaps because he sought to avoid the theological implication that the ram was a surrogate sacrifice for human sin.
\nlived happily The ending of Josephus\u2019s version of the Akedah\u2014that is, a \u201clived happily ever after\u201d finale, so typical of Hellenistic novels\u2014is Josephus\u2019s addition to the Bible.<\/p>\n
Joseph and Potiphar\u2019s Wife<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
Josephus\u2019s portrayal of Joseph, especially in connection with the incident with Potiphar\u2019s wife in Jewish Antiquities (2.39\u201360), has been vastly expanded and is strikingly different from that in the Bible (Gen. 39). There are a number of indications that the expansion is influenced by a similar incident in Euripides\u2019s Hippolytus. In the first place, Potiphar gives Joseph an education befitting an educated Greek in the liberal arts. Josephus deemphasizes the role of God in Joseph\u2019s actual achievements. It is not only Joseph\u2019s good looks but also his dexterity that leads Potiphar\u2019s wife to become enamored of him. There is a heightened erotic interest in the contrast between Potiphar\u2019s wife\u2019s daily solicitations, together with her hunt for isolation to seek out Joseph, and Joseph\u2019s persistent refusal to listen to her. Unlike a Rabbinic tradition that at one point Joseph was actually ready to submit to her advances, Josephus\u2019s Joseph consistently refuses. In a crucial extrabiblical addition Josephus\u2019s Joseph, like a Sophist intellectual, takes the initiative to try to convince her, through rational argument, to govern her passion. In the end, in a remarkable addition, when accused unjustly by Potiphar\u2019s wife of trying to rape her, Josephus\u2019s Joseph, like a Stoic, submits silently.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Josephus\u2019s Interpretation of the Bible, 335\u201373. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
39. the education that befits a free man This is Josephus\u2019s addition and refers to the \u201cliberal education,\u201d presumably in the seven liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy) that Potiphar gave to Joseph. This addition apparently reflects contemporary circumstances, inasmuch as, in Roman times, it was not uncommon for a talented slave to be educated by his master. Josephus, who enjoyed a similar education, is, it would seem, portraying Joseph, his namesake, as his forerunner. Philo (Joseph 38) likewise says that while in Potiphar\u2019s house Joseph received the training that was to stand him in good stead when he would become a statesman, namely in household management, since a house is, in effect, a miniature city. Joseph thus received an education that, in Josephus\u2019s presentation, is superior even to that of Moses, inasmuch as Josephus is content with the briefest of comments about Moses\u2019s upbringing (he does not specify education).
\nhanded over to him the care of the affairs of his household In general, Josephus takes pains to stress the accomplishments of his biblical heroes by deemphasizing the role of God in their actual achievements. Thus, whereas the biblical narrative declares that Potiphar, Joseph\u2019s master, saw that the LORD was with him (Gen. 39:3), Josephus omits God\u2019s role and simply states that Potiphar held Joseph in the highest esteem, presumably because of his efficiency and fidelity. Moreover, Josephus omits the biblical statement (39:5) that God blessed everything in Potiphar\u2019s house and field for the sake of Joseph.
\n40. did not forsake the virtue that encompassed him The statement that Joseph did not allow his change of fortune to make him abandon his virtue is an addition by Josephus. In the biblical narrative, just before Potiphar\u2019s wife makes her advances, Joseph\u2019s good looks are emphasized (Gen. 39:6). Josephus omits reference to Joseph\u2019s good looks and chooses to stress Joseph\u2019s virtue.
\nreason is able to overcome the difficulties in life This is in line with the advice given in 4 Macc. 1:1: \u201cAs I am going to demonstrate a most philosophical proposition, namely that religious reasoning is absolute master of the passions, I would willingly advise you to give the utmost heed to philosophy.\u201d
\n41. disposed amorously The very beginning of this episode is more romantic in Josephus\u2019s version. Whereas in Gen. 39:7 we are told that Potiphar\u2019s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, \u201cLie with me,\u201d in Josephus she becomes enamored of him, declares her passion, and proposes an illicit union (Ant. 2.41\u201342).
\nhis adroitness in his doings It is significant that whereas in the Bible it is Joseph\u2019s beauty alone (underscored with the duplicate phrases \u201cbeautiful form\u201d and \u201cfair to look upon\u201d) that attracts Potiphar\u2019s wife (Gen. 39:6\u20137), in Josephus\u2019s version it is not only his comely appearance but also his dexterity that leads her to become enamored of him.
\nshe would easily persuade him There is a striking similarity between Josephus\u2019s account of Potiphar\u2019s wife\u2019s initiative in approaching Joseph and Phaedra\u2019s initiative in soliciting Hippolytus. Apparently, the Phaedra-Hippolytus theme was very popular, as we can gather from the remark of the 2nd-century Pausanias (1.22.1) that \u201ceverybody, even a foreigner who has learnt the Greek tongue, knows about the love of Phaedra,\u201d and so we may assume that Josephus and many of his readers would have been acquainted with it as well. The theme recurs in a number of myths, notably in Homer\u2019s account (Il. 6.152\u2013202) of Queen Anteia\u2019s love for her subject Bellerophon. The popularity of this motif may be seen in its frequent appearance in the later Hellenistic novels, such as Heliodorus\u2019s Aethiopica. That Josephus has expanded the episode of Joseph and Potiphar\u2019s wife from 22 lines in the Hebrew and 32 lines in the LXX (Gen. 39:7\u201320) to 120 lines shows the great interest and importance that this episode held for him. Indeed, this pericope is the most highly expanded of all the Josephan episodes pertaining to Joseph and of almost all the biblical episodes paraphrased by Josephus.
\nsince he would consider it a stroke of luck that his mistress had solicited him This explanation as to why Potiphar\u2019s wife thought that she would succeed in persuading Joseph to have relations with her is Josephus\u2019s addition to the biblical text.
\n42. kept rejecting her request In Gen. 39:8 when Potiphar\u2019s wife makes her advances, Joseph refuses, which the LXX renders \u201che was unwilling.\u201d Josephus uses stronger language: he dismissed her entreaties. Josephus thus precludes the view of those Rabbis (J. Hor. 2:5:46d; Gen. Rab. 87:7; 98:20) who assert that Joseph was actually at the point of yielding to temptation and that only the appearance of his father and\/or his mother in a vision cooled his passion and prevented him from sinning. Significantly, in Gen. 39:9 Joseph presents two reasons for declining the proposal of Potiphar\u2019s wife: his obligations toward Potiphar and toward God; Josephus omits the latter, thus emphasizing further the temptation as one of passion.
\ninjustice and insolence toward the one who had bought him and had deemed him worthy of such honor Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, states that Joseph refused the overtures of Potiphar\u2019s wife not merely because of the immorality of the request but also because it would be an outrage to the host who had honored him so highly. Ironically, when Potiphar\u2019s wife accuses Joseph to her husband, she charges him with ingratitude in that he had forgotten the benefits that he had received from Potiphar (Ant. 2.56).
\n43. imploring her to prevail over her passion Whereas in the Bible Joseph explains why he must refuse the request of Potiphar\u2019s wife (Gen. 39:8\u20139), in Josephus he himself takes the initiative to try to convince her to govern her passion. The key word here is pathos, which occurs three times in this passage and has the double meaning of \u201cpassion\u201d and \u201csuffering.\u201d Joseph\u2019s address to Potiphar\u2019s wife is, in effect, Josephus\u2019s editorial on the theme that reason must prevail over passion.
\nhopelessness The notion of the hopelessness of Potiphar\u2019s wife satisfying her desire is Josephus\u2019s addition to the biblical text.
\nendure anything rather than to be obedient to this request Significantly, when Potiphar\u2019s wife approaches Joseph, he responds here, in a manner reminiscent of a Jewish or Christian martyr, that he will endure anything rather than be obedient to her immoral behest. It is most remarkable that Joseph, who so steadfastly withstands the temptation of Potiphar\u2019s wife, is, nevertheless, in Philo depicted as having a love of bodily pleasure (Dreams 2.16), whereas later (2.106\u20137) Philo praises him for his rejection of bodily pleasures as represented by Potiphar\u2019s wife.
\n44. increased her passion That Potiphar\u2019s wife\u2019s passion was increased by his opposition is Josephus\u2019s addition to the biblical text and serves to add to the intensity of the description. We can see the heightened erotic interest in the contrast between the biblical statement that Joseph did not listen to her daily solicitations (Gen. 39:10) and Josephus\u2019s version that the woman\u2019s love was only the more magnified by his unexpected opposition.
\n45. a public festival was at hand The romantic element is increased by Josephus\u2019s extrabiblical addition that Potiphar\u2019s wife solicited Joseph during a festival. A festival is also the occasion for a boy to fall in love with a girl according to the opening of the poet Musaeus\u2019s Hero and Leander. So also the Rabbinic tradition cites the details of the festival and the pretended illness of Potiphar\u2019s wife (B. Sot. 36b). It is significant that Josephus also elsewhere adds to the biblical account the detail of a festival in order to increase the erotic element, notably in connection with the seduction of Dinah (Ant. 1.337) and the riddle of Samson (5.289).
\nfeigned illness The theme of feigned illness is also found in the pseudepigraphic T. Jos. 7:1\u20132, though only in Josephus is it made clear that this is a device used by Potiphar\u2019s wife for being alone with Joseph. Her second invitation, she insists, is being made with even greater ardor than the first, as evidenced by the fact that she, like Phaedra in Euripides\u2019s Hippolytus, had feigned illness and had preferred talking to him rather than attending the festival that was then going on.
\nhunting for isolation In Gen. 39:11 we are simply told that on one particular day there was no one else in the house. Josephus\u2019s version is much more romantic in that Potiphar\u2019s wife hunts for isolation in order to seek out Joseph.
\n46. by giving in better to sagacity Such a medley of passion and reason, promises and threats is precisely the kind of speech that we find being delivered by Phaedra and her nurse in Euripides\u2019s play (Hippolytus 176\u2013524).
\n48. the enjoyment of greater ones The motif of a threat of death, on the one hand, and a promise of greater authority, on the other hand, is found also in the story of Gyges (Herodotus 1.11). A similar argument is found in the pseudepigraphic T. Jos. 3:2, which is, indeed, the most detailed parallel to Josephus\u2019s account of the episode of Potiphar\u2019s wife and Joseph.
\n50. though the woman said these things and wept A further romantic extrabiblical touch occurs in the weeping of Potiphar\u2019s wife.
\n52. self-confidence both before God and before men Whereas in the Bible Joseph exclaims that adultery would be a sin against God (Gen. 39:9), in Josephus\u2019s version he resorts to rational argument in trying to convince Potiphar\u2019s wife to desist from her advances.
\nthan in wickedness kept secret In Josephus\u2019s version Joseph takes advantage of the opportunity to preach a sermon to Potiphar\u2019s wife and to the reader about the transient pleasure of lust and the subsequent remorse that she would feel. In making Joseph admonish Potiphar\u2019s wife, Josephus, in effect, transfers to him the role of the nurse, who is Phaedra\u2019s confidant in Euripides\u2019s Hippolytus.
\n53. to turn her passion into reasonableness A major attribute connected with wisdom, as we see in Thucydides\u2019s portrait (2.60) of the ideal statesman, Pericles, is the ability to persuade. Whereas in Gen. 39:8\u20139 Joseph\u2019s arguments in refusing the advances of Potiphar\u2019s wife are that he cannot be disloyal to his master and violate the dictates of piety, the Josephan Joseph uses rational arguments in his attempt to turn her passion into the path of reasonableness (so also Philo, Joseph 49, and T. Jos. 7:5).
\nshe showed her fervor more impetuously The scene in Josephus is much more passionate than it is in the Bible. Whereas in the latter we do not read of her immediate reaction to Joseph\u2019s rejection of her proposal (Gen. 39:12), Josephus states that she displayed a more violent ardor.
\n54. Joseph \u2026 fled in rage The Rabbis (B. Sot. 36b) are divided as to whether Joseph was actually ready to submit to the advances of Potiphar\u2019s wife. In interpreting Gen. 39:11, \u201cone day, when he went into the house to do his work,\u201d Shmuel says that he went to satisfy his carnal desires.
\n55. a wicked slave Whereas in her statement to the men of her house Potiphar\u2019s wife makes a snide remark about the Jewishness of Joseph (\u201che has brought among us a Hebrew to insult us\u201d; Gen. 39:14), Josephus omits this prejudicial comment and instead concentrates on the romantic aspect.
\n59. her propriety and self-control There is added irony in Josephus\u2019s extrabiblical remark that after casting Joseph into prison Potiphar was prouder than ever of his wife, testifying to her decorum and sobriety. Of course, as the reader knows, it is her very lack of these qualities that led her to make advances to Joseph and to accuse him of attempted rape. These qualities are precisely those that would more justly apply to Joseph.
\n60. putting everything concerning himself in the hands of God Here, for the first time in this episode, Josephus introduces God; but whereas in Gen. 39:21 we are told that God was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love, in Josephus it is Joseph who takes the initiative in putting his life totally into God\u2019s hands.
\nin silence he underwent the chains and the distress In an extrabiblical comment, Joseph does not defend himself, but, like the Stoics to whom Josephus may well be appealing, he chooses to submit silently, to suffer unjustly, and to endure even the most extreme penalty.<\/p>\n
The Rape of Dinah<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
In dealing with the rape of Dinah, Josephus was confronted with a dilemma between sympathy for Dinah and condemnation of her brothers, Simeon and Levi, who, according to the Bible (Gen. 34), not only failed to live up to their promise to allow Shechem, the rapist, to marry Dinah, if the males of his nation, the Shechemites, would submit to circumcision, but proceeded to massacre the Shechemites. In Jewish Antiquities (1.337\u201340), Josephus shows less sympathy for the Shechemites since he adds that the rape occurred at a religious festival, hence a sacrilege. But he also creates more sympathy for Shechem, since he adds that Shechem showed genuine love for Dinah and was ready to give any dowry that Jacob and his sons might ask; and he further adds that the Shechemites graciously offered to open their land to the Israelites and to arrange marriages with them. Whereas the Bible states that Simeon and Levi killed the Shechemites on the third day after the circumcision, when they were in pain, seemingly a cowardly act, Josephus says that they attacked the Shechemites in a surprise military act when they had overly indulged in feasting. Most significantly, Josephus altogether omits the condition that the males be circumcised, and hence there was no promise broken. Rather, their act is simply revenge for the rape of their sister. Moreover, he adds that Simeon and Levi, in massacring the Shechemites, were acting without their father\u2019s permission and that Jacob was stricken with consternation at their deed. Josephus was sensitive to the charge that Jews are illiberal toward non-Jews but he was also sensitive to the charge that Jews actively seek to convert others to Judaism. Hence his silence here about the role of circumcision.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cPhilo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus, and Theodotus on the Rape of Dinah.\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review 94 (2004): 253\u201377.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
337. while the Sikimites were celebrating a festival That the Sikimites (= biblical Shechemites) were holding a festival is Josephus\u2019s addition. This would arouse more sympathy for Dinah, since it was presumably a religious festival; and to be raped at such a time would surely appear to be a sacrilege. The mention of a festival may have come from Theodotus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:22:4). A late Rabbinic tradition (Sefer Hayashar 13; Sekel Tov on Gen. 34:1) likewise speaks of a festival of women.
\nJacob\u2019s only daughter That Josephus, at the beginning of his narrative of Dinah, mentions, as the Bible does not, that Dinah was Jacob\u2019s only daughter arouses more sympathy for her plight.
\nShechem \u2026 seduced her through abduction Shechem would thus be seen in a worse light because the Bible says only that he \u201ctook\u201d Dinah and lay with her.
\nbeing amorously disposed toward her Josephus, in his generally increased respect for non-Jewish leaders, by introducing here the romantic element of having Shechem amorously disposed toward Dinah, rather than merely appealing to her emotions, shows greater regard for Shechem by having him actually approach her as a suppliant, rather than merely speak to his father to arrange to have Dinah as his wife.
\n338. nor considering it lawful to give his daughter in marriage to a foreigner Intermarriage was a delicate topic on which Josephus walked a tightrope, in view of the charges that the Jews were illiberal in their attitude toward non-Jews. Moreover, Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 34:7), which would seem to be illiberal, that when Jacob\u2019s sons arrived from the field and heard about the rape of Dinah, they were actually fired deeply with indignation. In particular, non-Jews might well have objected to the statement in the Bible that followed, explaining the reason for this indignation, namely that Shechem had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with a daughter of Jacob, \u201cfor such a thing ought not to be done.\u201d Josephus omits totally the negotiations of Hamor with Jacob and his sons. He makes no mention of Hamor\u2019s statement that Shechem longed deeply for Dinah and asked \u201cplease\u201d to give her to Shechem as a wife, since such apparently genuine feeling and politeness would have reflected badly on the Israelites if they had refused. In dealing with the request of Hamor for the hand of Dinah (34:8) Josephus carefully balances the fact that it was unlawful for Jacob to marry off his daughter to a foreigner against the fact that the petitioner was of high rank; and so, in an extrabiblical addition, he has him sagely ask Hamor for permission here to hold a council on the matter.
\n339. the king departed, hoping that Jacob would permit the marriage Josephus makes no mention of the Shechemites\u2019 offer to the Israelites to open the land to them and to arrange marriages with them (Gen. 34:9\u201310), since this would presumably have aroused the readers\u2019 sympathies for the Shechemites. He likewise omits Shechem\u2019s extremely romantic offer to Jacob and his sons to give whatever dowry, however great, they would ask (34:11\u201312), since, of course, this would have aroused even more sympathy for Shechem.
\nSimeon and Levi \u2026 agreed with each other on some action Whereas in the Bible (Gen. 34:13) all the sons of Jacob are described as speaking deceitfully to the Hivites, in Josephus the blame, if there is any, is restricted to Simeon and Levi, since here Jacob\u2014in an extrabiblical addition by Josephus\u2014reveals to his children the rape of their sister and the request of Hamor and asks them to hold a consultation as to what it is necessary to do; and when most of them are quiet, being at a loss as to what to do, it is Simeon and Levi who agree on their plan. Furthermore, Josephus\u2019s audience would have sympathized with these two brothers of Dinah, since, as he adds, they were born of the same mother as Dinah. In addition, whereas in Gen. 34:25\u201326 Simeon and Levi kill the Hivites on the third day after their circumcision, when they were in pain, and thus may be accused of a cowardly action, in Josephus they attack them in a surprise military action when they had overly indulged in feasting, first killing the guards when they were asleep and then killing all the males but sparing the women. That it was, in an extrabiblical comment, at a festival would remind Josephus\u2019s readers that it was, in a similar extrabiblical comment, at a festival that Dinah had been seduced by Shechem. The punishment would thus appear to be particularly appropriate for the crime. To Roman readers the whole incident might have been reminiscent of the celebrated action, according to the story popularized by Livy (1.58\u201360), taken by the Romans to avenge the rape of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquinius, the son of King Tarquinius Superbus, through driving Tarquinius Superbus and his sons into exile and establishing a republic in 509 BCE. Most significantly, Josephus here omits the condition, recounted at some length in the biblical text (Gen. 34:14\u201324), that the males of the Shechemites be circumcised, insisted upon by Jacob\u2019s sons, since to give their sister to a man who was uncircumcised would be a disgrace for them, but that if the Hivites would agree to this, they would consent to a general intermarriage between the Israelites and the Hivites. In that case, they would become one people\u2014a proposal that would have struck a responsive chord with a Roman audience that remembered the similar proposal of the Romans to the Sabines after the rape of the Sabine women (Livy 1.9.14\u201316). Josephus further omits the statement that Hamor and Shechem approved of this proposal and did not delay in implementing it and that, in fact, Shechem was the most respected of all his father\u2019s household (Gen. 34:19). By omitting this Josephus makes the action of Simeon and Levi appear not as treachery in violating an agreement that the Shechemites had entered into but rather as revenge for the rape of their sister. Josephus was quite sensitive about circumcision for two major reasons: first, it is the sign of an everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and Abraham\u2019s descendants (Gen. 17:4\u201314), in which God guarantees not only that he will make Abraham exceedingly fruitful so that he will be the father of a multitude of nations but also in which he promises him and his offspring the whole of the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession; second, the sign of this covenant is the circumcision of every male at the age of eight days and is the sine qua non for a male to join the Israelite people, so that in the words of the biblical text (17:14) \u201cany uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.\u201d As a Jew who spent the latter half of his life in the Diaspora and who sought an accommodation with the Romans, Josephus seeks to reduce the centrality of the land of Israel. In addition to the omission of reference to the circumcision of the Hivites, Josephus omits the biblical statement (Gen. 34:20\u201323) made by Hamor and Shechem, apparently completely convinced of the sincerity of the Israelite response, to the people of their city that the Israelites were peaceful people and urging the Hivites to agree to allow them to settle in the land, to trade there, to intermarry with them, and to fulfill the condition demanded by them, namely to circumcise all their males. To have included all of this would certainly have created greater sympathy for the Hivites and would also have illustrated the aggressiveness of the Israelites in seeking proselytes, insisted upon by Jacob\u2019s sons. By omitting this Josephus makes the action of Simeon and Levi appear not as treachery in violating an agreement that the Hivites had entered into but rather as revenge for the rape of their sister. As to Josephus\u2019s omission of the deceit of Simeon and Levi in killing the Hivites after they had fulfilled the condition of circumcision of all the males, Josephus was apparently sensitive to the charge that the Israelites could not be trusted to be honest in keeping their word.
\n340. while there was a festival This festival, like the one mentioned in Ant. 1.337, is an addition by Josephus. Whereas in Gen. 34:25\u201326 Simeon and Levi kill the Shechemites on the third day after their circumcision, when they were in pain and thus may be accused of a cowardly action, in Josephus they attack them, in a surprise military move, when they had overly indulged in feasting.
\nwithout the consent of their father For apologetic reasons, since Jacob was identified as the ancestor of the Jewish people, Josephus takes care to stress that Simeon and Levi, in massacring the Shechemites, acted without their father Jacob\u2019s permission. If we ask why Josephus is so critical of the zealous acts of Simeon and Levi, whereas he approves of the zealousness of Phinehas (Ant. 4.152\u201355), we may suggest that he is sensitive about relations with non-Jews, whereas he approves of strict enforcement of moral standards with regard to Jews. In Gen. 34:30 Jacob rebukes his sons because their action has brought him personal trouble, and there is no indication that he is really angry with them, let alone aghast at the enormity of their deeds. Perhaps Josephus\u2019s stronger language is influenced by Jacob\u2019s words (49:7) in his blessing of Simeon and Levi (which Ant. 2.194 omits) in which he curses their anger and denominates their wrath as cruel. If we ask how Simeon and Levi were able to overcome the entire adult male population of the Hivites, we may suggest that, according to Josephus, there was a festival, and the Hivites had turned to relaxation and feasting, and Simeon and Levi were able to overcome the Hivites while they were asleep.<\/p>\n
Moses\u2019s Campaign against the Ethiopians<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
In view of Josephus\u2019s promise (Ant. 1.17) that he will neither add anything to nor subtract anything from Scripture in his paraphrase, he nowhere departs from this promise more greatly than in his account of Moses\u2019s military campaign against the Ethiopians in this section of his Jewish Antiquities (2.238\u201353). He does so primarily in order to explain the reasons why Jews are hated and in order to emphasize the benefits that Jews have given to the people among whom they live. Secondarily, a great leader such as Moses must be presented as a military genius. The Ethiopian campaign is a proving ground for Moses\u2019s later trek through the desert.
\nThe sole biblical basis for the lengthy episode of Moses\u2019s Ethiopian campaign is a single verse (Num. 12:1): \u201cAnd Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses on account of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman.\u201d One view, found in Exod. Rab. 1:27, is that the Cushite (Ethiopian) woman is Zipporah the Midianite, Moses\u2019s first wife. This would be supported by Demetrius (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:29:3) and Ezekiel the Tragedian (59\u201364), who identify Midian with Ethiopia. Josephus has resorted to this extraordinary expansion for several reasons:<\/p>\n
1. This supplies a case history both of the causes of hatred of Jews and of the benefits that the Jews have given to society.
\n2. Josephus thus shifts the reason for the Pharaoh\u2019s wrath from his umbrage at Moses\u2019s murder of the Egyptian (Exod. 2:11\u201315), a passage that Josephus omits from his paraphrase, to envy of his military ability. Josephus may be implicitly answering such anti-Jewish writers as Manetho by suggesting that the Egyptians, rather than calumniating the Jews, should be grateful to them for the aid rendered to them by the Jews through Moses, who risked his life to save the Egyptians from the Ethiopian threat.
\n3. The episode disproves the contention that the Jews are cowards who are militarily inept. Moses turns out to be a brilliant strategist who is fearless in battle against the Ethiopians. Even so great a military leader as the Persian King Cambyses (Herodotus 3.17\u201326) had failed to conquer Ethiopia. Indeed, the Ethiopians had a reputation for being invincible (Strabo 16.4.4). Even Alexander the Great had failed to overcome them.
\n4. The biblical text may well make the reader wonder what qualifications a shepherd such as Moses had to lead hundreds of thousands of Israelites in a trek through an unknown desert and in military combat against numerous nations. The Ethiopian campaign turns out to be a proving ground for Moses.
\n5. Whereas the ibis was considered by the Egyptians to be divine, Josephus portrays the ibis as being merely a very useful part of Moses\u2019s strategy to overcome the snakes infesting the desert.
\n6. The historian must not only inform; he must also entertain. This episode provides romantic interest for Josephus\u2019s readers.
\n7. There is an apologetic strain, in that Moses abides by his agreement and marries the Ethiopian princess, whereas in the parallel stories of the Greco-Roman legendary and historical traditions, the hero typically betrays the traitoress.<\/p>\n
As to Josephus\u2019s source, the extant fragments of Artapanus in Eusebius are the closest parallel, but they do not mention Moses\u2019s marriage with the Ethiopian princess. The marriage with an Ethiopian is not found in Rabbinic literature until the 11th century (Tg. Yer. on Num. 12:1). These Rabbinic sources, however, depict Moses as fighting not against but on the side of the Ethiopians and as marrying not the princess but the widow of the Ethiopian king and as reigning as king of Ethiopia for 40 years. Another theory is that he borrowed from Josephon; but though we have several recensions of Josephon, none of them contain any reference to an Ethiopian campaign. The Ethiopians were a permanent, never conquered foe of the Egyptians.
\nWe may wonder why Philo, who writes at such length apologetically about Moses in his On the Life of Moses and is particularly concerned to answer the charges of Jew-haters, does not repeat this story, which would have served to answer so many of their contentions.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Josephus\u2019s Interpretation of the Bible, 402\u20135. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
\nRunnalls, D. \u201cMoses\u2019 Ethiopian Campaign.\u201d Journal for the Study of Judaism 14 (1983): 135\u201356.
\nShinan, A. \u201cMoses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in the Chronicles of Moses.\u201d Scripta Hierosolymitana 27 (1978): 66\u201378.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
241. the king bade his daughter to offer Moses to become his general As we learn from Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:3) the king\u2019s name was Chenephres, the brother and successor of Cheops (compare Herodotus 2.127 and Diodorus Siculus 1.64.1). According to Artapanus, Chenephres was betrothed to Merris, the daughter of Pharaoh Palmanothes. Merris remains unnamed in the account in Exod. 2:1\u201310, but she is referred to in 1 Chron. 4:18 as Bithiah. Josephus (Ant. 2.243) refers to her as Thermouthis, and Jub. 47:5 refers to her as Tharmuth. According to Artapanus, since she was barren, she adopted a child of one of the Jews and named him Moses. It is striking that whereas in the Septuagint Moses is never called strat\u0113gos (general) or even h\u0113gem\u014dn (leader), in Josephus he is referred to 15 times in Antiquities and once in Against Apion by the former term; in addition, the verb strat\u0113ge\u014d (to be a field commander, to lead an army) is used of him once, and the noun strat\u0113gia (army command, office of supreme commander) twice. Furthermore, the noun h\u0113gem\u014dn is applied to him six times. Indeed, according to Josephus (Ant. 2.268), it was not to him as teacher or legislator that the voice from the burning bush bade Moses to act but rather as general and leader.
\n242. would kill him as an enemy According to Josephus (Ant. 2.233), Thermouthis put the newborn Moses in the hands of her father, who placed his crown upon the babe\u2019s head in order to please his daughter. Thereupon Moses threw the crown upon the ground and stepped upon it. Exodus Rab. 1:26 and Deut. Rab. 11:10 similarly report that Moses took the crown from the Pharaoh\u2019s head and threw it down. According to Josephus (Ant. 2.234), an Egyptian sacred scribe regarded this as an evil omen and, predicting that the birth of the child would lead to the humiliation of the kingdom, uttered a dreadful scream and rushed headlong to kill him. Thermouthis, however, anticipated the scribe and rescued Moses, and the Pharaoh was hesitant to slay Moses. According to Artapanus, however, the priests had ambivalent feelings toward Moses. He reports (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:6) that Moses was deemed worthy of divine honor by the priests and was actually referred to by the name of the Greek god Hermes because of his ability to interpret the sacred writings.
\n243. do away with Moses by the same cunning According to Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:7), when the Pharaoh Chenephres saw Moses\u2019s popularity with the masses, he became jealous and sought to kill him on some pretext. When the Ethiopians went to war against Egypt, he conscripted a band of farmers for Moses and sent him with these troops, supposing that Moses would be killed by the enemy because his troops were so weak. Nevertheless, his troops prevailed in every battle in a war that lasted for ten years. The Ethiopians, in their admiration for him, came to love him and learned from him the practice of circumcision. Chenephres welcomed Moses back but continued to plot against him, entrusting the task to a certain Chanethothes. Aaron, Moses\u2019s brother, learned of the plot and advised Moses to flee to Arabia. Chanethothes lay in wait for Moses, but Moses anticipated him and killed him, this being Artapanus\u2019s version of how Moses killed the Egyptian who was maltreating Jews (Exod. 2:12).
\n246. filling them with ibises A parallel may be found in the Palaea historica, which tells how Moses, leading an expedition against the people of India, carried along 3,000 storks to overcome the immense number of serpents along the way.
\nsavage to the genus of serpents alone According to Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:9), Moses consecrated the ibis in the city of Hermopolis because of its reputation for killing those animals that are harmful to humans.
\n247. Greeks are not ignorant of the nature of the ibis Herodotus (2.75\u201376) describes in detail the appearance of two types of ibis. He says that he himself went to a place in Arabia not far from the town of Buto in his curiosity to learn about the winged serpents that they kill. There he saw countless bones and backbones of serpents. At the beginning of spring, winged serpents, he notes, are said to fly from Arabia toward Egypt; but the ibises encounter them and kill them. He remarks that both the Arabians and the Egyptians greatly honor the ibis for this service.
\n249. later called Meroe Herodotus (2.29; so also Strabo 17.2.2) states that Meroe is a great city that is said to be the capital of all Ethiopia. According to Artapanus (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9:27:16), Moses named the city after his adoptive mother, Merris. According to Strabo (17.1.5.790) she was Cambyses\u2019s wife.
\nAstapus The Blue Nile.
\n252. Tharbis The story of Tharbis, the princess who betrayed her city to the conqueror because of her love for him, is similar to that of Scylla, the daughter of Nisus, the legendary king of Megara, the fate of whose city depended on his red or purple lock of hair. Scylla, like Tharbis, cut off the lock of hair, thus betraying the city to the besieging general Minos either for a bribe (Aescylus, Cho. 612\u201322) or for love (Ovid, Metam. 8.1\u2013151).
\ndaughter of the king In the Chronicles of Moses the wife of the king of the Ethiopians is given to Moses.
\n253. led the Egyptians back to their land Josephus\u2019s account seems to be contradictory, since, on the one hand, Moses is presented as conquering Ethiopia and leading back the Ethiopian princess and, on the other hand, he is the liberator of Egypt, subjected to jealousy there, with nothing further said about the Ethiopian princess.<\/p>\n
The Sending of the Spies<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
The most striking change, as compared with the Bible (Num. 13\u201314), in Josephus\u2019s account of the episode of the scouts in Jewish Antiquities (3.300\u2013316), is the buildup of Moses as a planner, general, and fearless leader of a nation of complainers. Most significantly, it is Moses\u2019s idea rather than God\u2019s to send the scouts. However, aware of the charge that Moses was acting tyrannically, Josephus strikingly has regard for the democratic process in that the Israelites rather than Moses select the scouts. Josephus is sensitive to the charge of superstition and thus avoids adding a letter to a name in order to change a name. He avoids undue exaggeration as hostile to credibility. He is sensitive to the charge of outright theft and hence omits Moses\u2019s instruction to the scouts to take from the fruit of the land of Canaan. He is very sensitive to the charge that the Israelites were punished for accepting the report of the majority of the scouts and insists that this shows the ingratitude of the Israelites for all that God had done for them. He emphasizes the fickleness of the Israelites in their readiness to stone Moses and Moses\u2019s courage in confronting them and in calming them as a true leader who did not dissociate himself from the sufferings of his people.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJosephus on the Spies (Num. 13\u201314).\u201d Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001, M\u00fcnsteraner Judaistische Studien 12 (2001): 22\u201341.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
300. from there Hazeroth, according to Num. 11:35. In the Bible (13:1) there is no indication of the background of the decision to send spies into Canaan. Nor is there any indication of the connection between this decision and what precedes, namely the punishment inflicted upon Miriam for her criticism of Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman (12:1). In Josephus this episode comes immediately after the Israelites complain about the lack of food and the appearance of the quails (Ant. 3.295\u201399). This juxtaposition emphasizes the degree to which the Israelites needlessly complain, whereas faith in God fully guarantees their future.
\nPharanx The location of Pharanx (Hebrew Paran, the wilderness south of Israel, west of Edom, north of the wilderness of Sinai) and its nature is Josephus\u2019s addition to Num. 12:16, which merely mentions the name.
\ngathered the multitude in assembly Josephus\u2019s extrabiblical additions include Moses gathering the multitude in assembly and the entire contents of his speech. In the Bible (Num. 13:17\u201320), when Moses arrives at the borders of Canaan, he does not speak to the Israelites generally but merely gives direct instructions to the scouts who are to spy out the land.
\n302. let us send scouts Whereas in the Bible it is God\u2019s idea to send scouts (Num. 13:1\u20132), Josephus, ever seeking to build up the stature of Moses as a military planner, attributes the plan to Moses (so also Philo, Moses 1.221, and Num. Rab. 16:8.). There is an apparent contradiction between Num. 13:1\u20132, in which God directs Moses to send the scouts into Canaan, and Deut. 1:22\u201323, in which the Israelites suggest this to Moses. The Rabbis recognize this problem and attempt to reconcile these verses, whereas Philo and Josephus ignore Num. 13:1\u20132.
\nwho will ascertain the excellence of the land Whereas in the Bible (Num. 13:1\u20132) no background or reasoning or expectation is presented in God\u2019s instructions to Moses to send scouts into Canaan, in Josephus, Moses, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Israelites, presents that background as to why scouts are needed to investigate the richness of the land and the strength of the forces of the enemy. In the Bible (13:17\u201320) these instructions are given by Moses to the scouts after they have been selected. In Josephus Moses explains to the people before selecting the scouts why he is doing so and thus prepares them for what will ensue and raises their morale accordingly.
\nlet us all be of one mind Josephus\u2019s word, \u201cbe of one mind,\u201d seldom appears in Josephus in the pedestrian sense of \u201cto agree\u201d or \u201cto be unanimous.\u201d Rather, it is usually a theological term, indicating unity of thought and behavior that characterizes genuine Jews. Especially in Jewish War Josephus stresses that the opposite of this word, that is, dissension among the rebellious Jews, leads to collapse. Elsewhere he appeals to his politically minded audience by stressing the theme of the disastrous danger of civil strife, so familiar to readers of Thucydides\u2019s description (3.82\u201384) of revolution at Corcyra. This theme would have struck a responsive chord in many of Josephus\u2019s readers, who might well have been acquainted with the terrible consequences of the lawlessness brought on by the plague in Athens (Thucydides 2.53.1). The Romans, who themselves had experienced a century of constantly recurring civil strife from the struggle of the Senate against the Gracchi, of Sulla against Marius, of Caesar against Pompey, of Brutus against Antony, and of Antony against Octavian, and who had a great tradition of respect for law going back at least to the Twelve Tables, would surely have appreciated such an emphasis on the dire consequences of internecine bloodshed. Clearly, Josephus\u2019s emphasis on the importance of unity grew out of Josephus\u2019s own experience in the war against the Romans, in which he stresses over and over again how disastrous for the Jews was their disunity. He adds this point here to protect Moses from the charge that it was, after all, he who had initiated the idea of sending scouts.
\nlet us hold in honor God Normally, Josephus diminishes or even omits the role of God in decision-making. The chief exception is, as here, when the wrong decision may lead to civil strife. This addition to the biblical text (Num. 13:17) stresses Moses\u2019s piety. In the Bible we read only that Moses sends scouts to spy out the land. Josephus\u2019s Moses, in his speech to the entire people, also exhorts them to be on one mind and to hold God in lasting honor.
\nwho is our helper This addition by Josephus prepares the reader to justify what God does to the majority of spies who give up hope of conquering the Canaanites, for it implies that if, indeed, they had recalled all that God had done for them in afflicting the Egyptians with the ten plagues, in enabling the Israelites to leave Egypt, in splitting the Sea of Reeds and defeating the Egyptians, in giving them the means to survive in the totally barren desert by feeding them with manna and quails, and in giving them the power to defeat the Amalekites utterly, they should have had faith that God would enable them to fulfill the promise that he had given them to lead them into the Promised Land.
\n303. they chose twelve scouts In the Bible (Num. 13:16), Philo (Moses 1.221) and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 15:1), Moses selects the twelve spies, whereas in Josephus the Israelites, more democratically, do so. Again, whereas in the Bible (Num. 13:17\u201320) and in Philo (Moses 1.222) Moses indicates to the scouts what they are to investigate, in Josephus Moses, more democratically, indicates directly to the people what matters the scouts are to investigate. Apparently, Josephus is very sensitive to the charge made by Zimri (Ant. 4.146) that Moses gave orders tyrannically. Josephus (J.W. 4.397) says that the three greatest of calamities are war, tyranny, and faction, but that to the populace war was comparatively the mildest. In effect, this is intended to reply to the charge that, since it was Moses\u2019s idea to send scouts, he had to bear responsibility for their report.
\ntwelve scouts One of the scouts mentioned in the Bible is Hoshea the son of Nun (Num. 13:8). The Bible then adds (13:16) that Moses called Hoshea Joshua. Josephus omits this change of name, as he does the changes of name of Abram to Abraham and of Sarai to Sarah. We may surmise that Josephus omitted the change because one of the charges against the Jews, even by someone such as Plutarch (Superst. 8.169c), who was relatively sympathetic to them, was that they were superstitious. Thus, to the Greeks, the addition of an alpha to the name of Abram (Gen. 17:5) would seem difficult to comprehend, as Philo\u2019s efforts (Names 66\u201376) to explain the matter make clear. The change of a single letter in the name of Sarai to Sarah would similarly seem difficult. The same would be true of the change of the name of Hoshea to Joshua. On the other hand, the change of name of Jacob to Israel and of Joseph to Zaphenath-Paneah in giving a person a completely different alternate name, just as Paris is also known as Alexander and Ascanius is also called Iulus, is not regarded as superstitious. Those appointed to high positions were customarily given names reflecting their newly gained importance. On the other hand, Josephus may well have been sensitive to the scoffing, noted by Philo (Names 60\u201362), of those who ridiculed such a change of name as that from Abram to Abraham. Hence, Josephus simply omits the change of name of Hoshea to Joshua.
\nthe most notable men Josephus omits the names of the twelve scouts (Num. 13:4\u201315). In his rewriting of the Bible, Josephus, like a rhetorician, is constantly concerned with how his work will sound to the ear. Thus he is eager to avoid burdening his readers with long lists of names, even though this would add to the historicity of his account. For example, he omits the long list of the descendants of Esau (Gen. 36:20\u201342; Ant. 2.5). Furthermore, he declares (2.176\u201377) that he is inclined to omit, because of their strangeness to a Greek ear, the list of names of the 70 descendants of Jacob who went down to Egypt (Gen. 46:8\u201326); he ends up citing the names, but it is only to refute those opponents of the Jews who had contended that the Jews were of Egyptian rather than of Mesopotamian origin. Again (Ant. 7.369), whereas 1 Chron. 27 gives a long list of the names of David\u2019s army officers and administrators, Josephus asserts that he has not thought it necessary to mention their names. Likewise, he omits the names of the families that returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity (Ezra 2:2\u201361; 1 Esd. 5:4\u201338; Ant. 11.68), the names of those Jews who sent away their foreign wives at the request of Ezra (Ezra 10:18\u201344; 1 Esd. 9:18\u201335; Ant. 11.152), the names of King Ahasuerus\u2019s seven chamberlains (Esther 1:10; Ant. 11.190), the names of his seven counselors (Esther 1:14; Ant. 11.192), and the names of Haman\u2019s ten sons (Esther 9:7\u20139; Ant. 11.289). Similarly, presumably for the same reason, Josephus (12.57) states that he thinks that it is unnecessary to report the names of the 70 elders who translated the Pentateuch into Greek.
\nAmathe This is Hamath on the river Orontes in Syria. The Hebrew (Num. 13:21) says not \u201cHamath\u201d but \u201con the road to\u201d Hamath. It is, nevertheless, hard to suppose that the scouts went so far north, though this is apparently what Josephus thought. The reference may be to Hamat Gader in the valley of the Yarmuk River near the Sea of Galilee.
\nMount Libanos This is the Jebel Libnan mountain range in Syria and is an indication that the northern border of Canaan was considered to extend to southern Syria. Libanos is not mentioned in the biblical account (Num. 13:21\u201322), which states that the scouts spied the land from the wilderness of Zin to Rehob, near the entrance of Hamath, and that they went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron.
\nafter searching out thoroughly the nature of the land If, as Josephus says, the spies spent only 40 days on the entire task they could not have searched out thoroughly the nature of the land and of its inhabitants. One cannot avoid the impression that if they did their job thus they did it superficially. If so, one might well criticize Moses for asking them to do such a huge task in so short a period of time. But the Bible does not indicate such instructions. Apparently, the time frame was left open. Hence, it was the decision of the scouts themselves to attempt such a thorough investigation in such a short period of time, and consequently, they, and not Moses, deserve criticism. Moreover, the report that the scouts bring back is self-contradictory: on the one hand, they, in an extrabiblical comment, in their positive enthusiasm, rouse the people to war. On the other hand, in an authorial comment, they actually terrify the multitude; and, in an extrabiblical remark, they are specific in indicating what frightened them, namely that the rivers were downright impossible to cross because of their size and depth, the mountains were impossible for travelers to climb, and the cities were not merely very greatly fortified but, more specifically, were mighty with ramparts and with the strength of surrounding walls. To give credibility to their statements, the scouts, in Josephus\u2019s report, omit the obvious exaggeration in the statement that all whom they saw were huge, as well as the comment that they felt like grasshoppers, compared with the huge size of the inhabitants, and that the land devours its inhabitants. If they had included such exaggerations we may surmise that this would have undermined the credibility of the whole report; and so the net result was that their frightening report seemed more credible. We may note that similarly, in other places in his reworking of the biblical narrative, Josephus avoids exaggeration and the grotesque.
\n304. brought the products that the land bore In the Bible (Num. 13:20) Moses tells the scouts to take from the fruit of the land of Canaan. This raises the question whether this would not be outright theft. We should not be surprised, therefore, that Philo and Josephus, aware of such a charge, do not have Moses thus instruct the scouts. Philo (Moses 1.230) does say that they did pluck some of the fruits, and Josephus here says that they brought back the products of Canaan; but the scouts apparently did so not because Moses had ordered them to do so but on their own initiative.
\n306. they continued to lament with their wives and children The question might well be raised whether God was justified in deciding that the entire multitude should be condemned to die in the desert when all that they had done was to accept the majority report of a committee, whether appointed by God, Moses, or themselves, especially since in a democratic society, the majority\u2014in this case, ten versus two\u2014should have prevailed, as we see in the traditional exegesis of the scriptural phrase (Exod. 23:2), \u201cfollow the multitude,\u201d as formulated in the Rabbinic dictum (B. Ber. 9a): \u201cWhere there is a controversy between an individual and the many, the halakah follows the many.\u201d Consequently, the Rabbis (B. BM 59a) insisted that even if a heavenly voice declares that the law is in accordance with the minority, the view of the majority must prevail. A clue to the answer may be seen in the fact that whereas the Bible (Num. 14:1) says that upon receiving the report of the majority of the scouts the people wept, Josephus here says that they wept, together with their wives and children, that is, that the report was accepted by all the people. Josephus stresses that this demonstrates the utter ingratitude of the people in forgetting all that God had done for them and his fulfillment of every promise, including their arrival in and promise of the conquest of the land of Israel. Moreover, we may wonder at God\u2019s condemnation, to die in the plague, of the ten scouts who had brought the majority report (14:36\u201337), since a plague is likely to spread to innocent people also. Josephus, realizing that this would raise the issue of theodicy, simply omits mention of the plague altogether.
\n307. having in mind to stone Moses and Aaron The offense of the Israelite multitude is far greater in Josephus than in the Bible in that in the latter they were ready to pelt Joshua and Caleb, the two members of the scouts who dissented from the majority, whereas in Josephus they blamed Moses and Aaron, loading them with abuse, and even intended to stone them, though it was not they who had given the report. Josephus, preferring to put the emphasis on Moses and Aaron and the attempt to stone them, omits totally the decision of the congregation to stone Caleb and Joshua. In short, in Josephus the populace is rebelling not only against God but also, more especially, against Moses and Aaron. Josephus has them fall to the ground not before but after mention is made of Joshua and Caleb\u2019s attempt to calm the multitude (3.310), in order not to damage the reputation of Moses as the fearless charismatic leader who refused to submit to despair and did so only after the final desperate appeal by Caleb and Joshua. One wonders whether Moses and Aaron did this in order to beg for mercy from the people. This would surely not be a sign of leadership. Rather, we would have expected them to stand up to the congregation, in order to refute what had been told to them, and to instill in them the courage to reject the view of the majority of the scouts. Instead, God turns to Moses, and Moses turns to God (Num. 14:11\u201335). Josephus, in his version (Ant. 3.310), insists that in prostrating themselves, Moses and Aaron were beseeching God not on behalf of their own salvation but to free the multitude from its ignorance and to pacify their feelings.
\n311. Moses, summoning courage, approached the multitude It is not God who must be the central figure in this drama. On the contrary, exactly as we would expect, it is Moses who now summons the courage to confront the multitude and reveals to them that God, aroused by their insolence, will exact punishment. Nevertheless, Josephus is aware that some of his readers will be critical of God for losing his temper, so to speak, and overreacting in a fit of anger. Hence, Josephus immediately adds that God acted not in keeping with the people\u2019s misdeeds, but in a way reminiscent of fathers who inflict punishment upon their children as an admonition. In the Bible God, in his indignation with the Israelites, tells Moses that he will inflict a pestilence upon them and that he will thereafter create a greater and mightier nation out of him (Num. 14:12). Moses (14:13\u201319) answers God effectively, since he asserts that when the Egyptians hear of this they will say that the reason why God killed the people is that he lacked the power to bring them into their land. God is then persuaded by Moses\u2019s argument. To say the least, this seems to reflect badly on God and appears to indicate that Moses is more merciful than God. Josephus here, apparently aware of the theological problem, omits the whole passage. Instead, he (Ant. 3.310) does not criticize God at all or imply that his reputation will be damaged. Rather, despite the ugly mood of the multitude, Moses and Aaron, we are told in this extrabiblical addition by Josephus, instead of panicking, show their compassion for the people, their ability to analyze the cause of their depression, and their own true leadership by supplicating God to rid the populace of their ignorance and to calm their spirits (Ant. 3.310). In an extrabiblical passage, God reminds Moses about the benefits that the Israelites had received from him and about their ungratefulness (3.312). For Josephus the trait of showing gratitude is of crucial importance. In his attention to the hubris of the Israelites, Josephus is apparently thinking of the contemporary situation in which the revolutionaries, whom he so despised, showed ingratitude to the pax Romana and rebelled against Roman authority.
\n314. he would cause them \u2026 to pass their lives in the wilderness for 40 years Josephus omits the biblical statement (Num. 14:34) that the 40 years that the Israelites are condemned to wander in the wilderness correspond to the 40 days during which they spied out the land of Canaan, such a calculus being unworthy of God in Josephus\u2019s eyes.
\n316. one should not disbelieve that Moses, being a solitary man, calmed so many myriads Josephus, aware that readers might ask why Moses did not try to convince God to retract his decision to cause the Israelites to wander in the desert for 40 years, insists that Moses did not dissociate himself from the sufferings of his people. Rather, he says, Moses calmed the huge throng of angry people and, like a true leader, led them back to a milder mood. One surmises that Josephus is thinking of his own ability, as general in Galilee, to pacify angry crowds, despite his isolation (Life 100, 141\u201342, 146\u201348, 388).<\/p>\n
The Revolt of Korah<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
One of the greatest threats to Moses\u2019s leadership was the revolt led by Korah (Num. 16). In Jewish Antiquities 4.14\u201358, Josephus, like the Rabbis, emphasizes Korah\u2019s wealth and his ability as a speaker. Like Philo, he stresses that Korah\u2019s charge against Moses is nepotism, as seen in the choice of Moses\u2019s brother, Aaron, to be high priest and that Aaron was chosen in an undemocratic fashion. The most damning charge, as found in Josephus\u2019s addition and as cited also by the Rabbis, is that the laws were not divine in origin but were invented by Moses himself. Josephus, in turn, portrays Korah as a typical demagogue who pretends to be concerned with the public welfare, whereas actually he is totally selfish. Josephus\u2019s Moses, on the other hand, appealing to Stoics in his audience, uses familiar Stoic terminology, emphasizing that all is directed by divine providence and that nothing happens by chance. Moreover, he was aware that many in his audience would regard Korah\u2019s miraculous end as violating scientific expectation and would be unable to accept the biblical text\u2019s statement that the earth swallowed up those who supported Korah. Hence, he paints the scene more scientifically as an earthquake. Whereas the Bible presents the seemingly contradictory view that Korah\u2019s followers were consumed by the earth and by fire, Josephus is in accord with a Rabbinic view that Korah\u2019s followers were swallowed up by fire.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134, 333\u201349. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJosephus\u2019 Portrait of Korah.\u201d Old Testament Essays 6 (1993): 399\u2013426.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
14. wealth The statement that Korah was distinguished in wealth is Josephus\u2019s extrabiblical addition. Besides two references to Korah\u2019s wealth in Ant. 4.14, it is mentioned in three other places (4.19, 25, 26). In the last of these passages Moses readily acknowledges that Korah surpasses both himself and Aaron in the magnitude of his possessions. Like Josephus, the Rabbis (Num. Rab. 10:3) stress the immensity of Korah\u2019s wealth. Wealth is regarded by the Rabbis as one of the prerequisites for a prophet (B. Ned. 38a). According to Rabbi Levi, the mere keys of Korah\u2019s treasure-house actually required 400 mules to transport them (B. Pes. 119a).
\nable speaker The statement that Korah was an able speaker and persuasive in addressing crowds is Josephus\u2019s addition. One of the four qualities of the ideal statesman, as we see in the speech that Thucydides (2.60.6) ascribes to Pericles, is the ability to present one\u2019s policy clearly and convincingly before the people. It is, therefore, significant that when Josephus introduces the figure of Korah one of the first points that he makes about him is his ability as a capable speaker. This makes him a formidable opponent of Moses, inasmuch as this is a quality that Josephus ascribes to Moses himself (Ant. 3.13; 4.328). The Rabbis (Num. Rab. 16:1) also emphasize Korah\u2019s power of speech.
\n15. he inveighed Not only is the speech of Korah expanded from a mere 14 words in the Hebrew to 194 words, but its rhetoric becomes considerably more violent. To the Romans, with their great tradition of respect for the laws, the charge that Moses had acted in defiance of the laws would be especially effective. Likewise, the Romans, who felt so strongly about honorable dealings and who looked with disdain upon \u201cCarthaginian faith\u201d (treachery), would certainly have understood Korah\u2019s charge, upon which Josephus dwells at such length, that Moses had committed an outrage clandestinely.
\nhad given the priesthood to his brother The charge of nepotism is also found in Philo\u2019s Rewards 78.
\nhis own vote This charge is Josephus\u2019s extrabiblical addition. According to Tanhuma Korah 4, Korah reproached Moses for inventing the laws themselves. So also Zimri, in his attack on Moses (Ant. 4.146).
\n16. he was conferring honors upon whomever he wished In Rabbinic literature, as in Josephus\u2019s version, Korah is jealous that Moses bypassed him and appointed his cousin Aaron as high priest (Num. Rab. 18:4).
\n19. I am more deserving In the Bible Korah\u2019s revolt is not motivated by jealousy of Aaron\u2019s high priesthood as such; rather, Korah claims, the method by which Aaron was chosen to be high priest was undemocratic. Like Josephus, the Rabbinic tradition stresses as a motive for the revolt Korah\u2019s desire for the high priesthood (Tanhuma Pequdei 1).
\n20. manipulating Korah is portrayed as a typical demagogue who wishes to make it appear that he is concerned with the public welfare, whereas in reality he is but scheming to have the honor for himself. Mishnah Avot 5:17 cites the rebellion of Korah as the chief example of a controversy that is not \u201cfor the sake of heaven\u201d but for selfish reasons.
\n22. bent on stoning Moses So also the Rabbinic tradition (Num. Rab. 18:4).
\nimperious decrees Like Josephus, the main point stressed by the Rabbinic tradition (Midr. Ps. 1:15) concerning Korah is his attack upon the Torah itself and his attempt to disprove its divine origin.
\n34. elected priest Josephus employs the language of a political election when he speaks of the election of a priest. The word here used for \u201celected\u201d literally means to stretch out one\u2019s hand for the purpose of giving one\u2019s vote in the assembly.
\n47. all things are governed by your providence When Josephus introduces here the theme that all is directed by divine providence (pronoia), his aim is not primarily theological but philosophical. That he seeks to please his Roman audience, composed largely of Stoics, is suggested by the phrase that follows immediately thereafter, namely that the incident proves that nothing happens fortuitously (automat\u014ds). This terminology clearly reflects the Stoic conception of providence and is intended as an attack on the Epicurean notion that the world runs by its own movement.
\n51. the earth shook In his reworking of the biblical narrative Josephus avoids undue exaggeration and the grotesque as might provoke the ridicule of a later satirist, such as Lucian. So where Num. 16:31\u201332 has the earth opening its mouth and swallowing up Korah and his followers, in Josephus\u2019s version the event is more scientifically presented as an earthquake, which he then proceeds to compare dramatically to a wave tossed by the violence of the wind. He gives further details as well\u2014a crash and a burst of booming sound.
\n56. their bodies vanished Josephus tries to avoid the apparent contradictions in his biblical source. One such seeming contradiction concerns the manner in which Korah and his company died. On the one hand, the biblical text states that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up all the men who belonged to Korah (Num. 16:32). Three verses later, however, we are told that fire came forth from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who had offered incense (16:35), presumably the 250 followers of Korah (16:2). Josephus neatly resolves the problem by asserting that the earth swallowed up Korah\u2019s associate, Datham, and the latter\u2019s followers, whereas Korah\u2019s company was consumed by fire. Rabbinic tradition, bound by adherence to the biblical text, generally asserts that Korah was swallowed up by the earth. The only Rabbinic texts that explicitly state that Korah and his company were consumed by fire are Num. Rab. 4:20 and its parallels.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
207. not shutting yourself up like a woman who never stirs outside her quarters Philo writes similarly in Flaccus 89 respecting the Alexandrian Jewish community: \u201ctheir women kept in seclusion, never even approaching the outer doors, and their maidens confined to the inner chambers, who for modesty\u2019s sake avoided the sight of men,\u201d and cf. … <\/p>\n