The Story of Balaam<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
Josephus, addressing critical readers of the Bible, attempts to solve contradictions, such as the Bible\u2019s apparent conflation of Moabites and Midianites. As one who had a close relationship with the Romans, he seeks to refute the view that the Israelites were hated by whole nations rather than by individuals. He very deliberately attributes the confrontation of the Israelites with the Midianites to a military basis rather than due to anti-Jewish hatred. He is concerned to answer stock charges of anti-Semites, such as that the Israelites are meddlesome in the affairs of other nations. Whereas the Bible views Balaam in the most negative terms, Josephus, amazingly enough, emphasizes his hospitality\u2014the quality that was most deeply appreciated in antiquity. In sharp contrast to the Bible (Num. 22\u201324), Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities (4.102\u2013125), presents Balaam, motivated by his loyalty to Balak, as advising the envoys sent by Balak to renounce the hatred that they bore to the Israelites. At one point, incredibly, in an extrabiblical addition, he not only blames Balaam but even seems to castigate God! When God appears to contradict himself Josephus amazingly explains that it was all a ruse on God\u2019s part! As to Balaam\u2019s cursing the Israelites, Josephus very generously excuses him by painting him as a proto-Stoic philosopher and as a victim of inflexible fate. By stating that God has granted his providence to the Israelites, Josephus praises Balaam in the highest terms. Whereas the biblical Balaam predicts that the Israelites shall dwell alone, thus exposing them to the charge of misanthropy, Josephus speaks of the excellence of the Israelites as compared with other peoples. He is careful to speak in cryptic terms a prophecy that might be interpreted as a prediction that a calamity would befall a city, which was identified by some as Rome. Since nothing is more important to a historian than his credibility, Josephus was faced with a tremendous problem as to how to present the scene of the donkey speaking to Balaam. Clearly aware of this, Josephus concludes by giving the reader the choice as to believe or not to believe the account.
\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\u2019 Portrait of Balaam.\u201d Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 48\u201383.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
102. Moabites, who had an ancestral friendship and alliance with the Midianites That Balak had an ancestral friendship and alliance with the Midianites is Josephus\u2019s extrabiblical addition. Josephus thus addresses an apparent contradiction in the biblical text, which seems to confuse the Moabites and the Midianites. Similarly, according to the Tg. Yer. on Num. 22:4, Moab and Midian formed a confederate state, with a Moabite and Midianite alternating as king. The Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 22:4 states that the Moabites and Midianites formed a single people and had a single king. Josephus seeks to attribute hatred of the Jewish people not to whole nations but merely to individuals. The intrusion of the Midianites into a story concerning only Moab may be explained by noting a Rabbinic observation (B. Sanh. 105a) that the alliance between Midian and Moab resulted from their common exposure to the Hebrew menace. Their motive in going to war with the Israelites, according to Josephus, is thus not hatred (Ant. 4.103). In fact, such a presentation casts the Moabites and the Midianites in a much better light.
\nHebrews were not meddlesome In an extrabiblical detail, Josephus, in introducing the narrative of Balaam, remarks that Balak had not learned that the Hebrews did not interfere with other countries, God having forbidden them to do so. The verb that is used here for interfering implies being meddlesome, being an inquisitive busybody, and is almost always employed in a pejorative sense.
\n104. Balaam That Balaam is cited, with virtually no introduction, according to an amazing find, in an extrabiblical inscription discovered in 1967, indicates that the name of Balaam was well known to the pagan people to whom the inscription in question (apparently dating from the 8th century BCE) was addressed, so that we may infer that Balaam\u2019s prophetic status was a tradition of long standing. That the story of Balaam was of great interest to Josephus may be deduced from the extraordinary amount of space that he gives to this narrative. Josephus does not give the name of Balaam\u2019s father, Beor (Num. 22:5), perhaps because the name Beor signifies foolishness (compare Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 22:5) or because he normally omits the antecedents of suspicious people.
\nseer Josephus distinguishes carefully, in his terminology, between pagan and Jewish prophets and even between the classical prophets and those latter-day prognosticators such as himself. He never refers to Balaam by the Greek word proph\u0113t\u0113s, presumably because some of his readers were Jews, who would resent such an identification. The word mantis, which he applies to Balaam, refers to one who has foresight and knowledge of future events, whereas the task of the Jewish prophet is to be the voice of God and to declare the knowledge of God to those who come for advice. And yet, in contrast, the Rabbinic tradition (Sifre Deut. 357) considers Balaam even greater than Moses in that whereas Moses had to pray to God to show him his ways, Balaam could declare of himself that \u201che knew the knowledge of the Most High\u201d (Num. 24:16).
\n105. he [Balaam] received them cordially and hospitably There was almost no quality more deeply appreciated in antiquity than hospitality. Hence, the reader will form a distinctly positive picture of Balaam by virtue of the hospitality that he shows in Josephus\u2019s additions to the biblical account, which asserts simply that Balaam told Balak\u2019s envoys to remain overnight (Num. 22:8). Josephus adds that Balaam, the gracious host, gave them supper.
\n106. the army In referring to the Israelites as an army, Josephus puts the confrontation with the Midianites on a military basis rather than on one of anti-Jewish hatred.
\nthat they terminate their hostility toward the Israelites Far from imputing anti-Jewish hatred to Balaam, Josephus presents him as counseling the envoys who had been sent by Balak to renounce the hatred that they bore to the Israelites. By contrast, the Rabbinic view (Tanhuma Balak 9) and that of Philo (Moses 1.266) is that Balaam was not at all sincere in his initial refusal to accompany the envoys. In the Bible Balaam does not give advice, as Josephus reports him doing here, on his own but reports merely that it is God who has refused to allow him to accompany the envoys (Num. 22:12). Moreover, Josephus\u2019s favorable picture of Balaam is enhanced by the fact that, unlike the Rabbinic tradition (Num. Rab. 20:12, 19), which connects Balaam\u2019 desire to gratify the ambassadors with his hatred of them, Josephus has Balaam explicitly inquire of God concerning his intention with regard to the invitation of the envoys. From this statement we see that Balaam\u2019s motive is not actually hatred for the Israelites but rather loyalty to his sovereign, Balak.
\n107. not supposing that God had directed him to do so through a ruse Even when Balaam, instructed by God to accompany the delegation, agrees to do so, Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, not only does not blame Balaam but even seems to castigate God, since we are told that Balaam did not realize that God had deluded him in giving him this order. Josephus here appears to agree with the Rabbinic tradition (Num. Rab. 20:9, 11) that it was God who had led Balaam astray by directing him to accede to the request of the envoys. One major difficulty in the Balaam pericope is that in Num. 22:20 God instructs Balaam to accompany the envoys who have been sent to him, whereas a mere two verses later (22:22) God expresses his anger at Balaam for doing this. The Rabbis resolve this contradiction by insisting that since Balaam wanted to act wickedly, he was permitted to do so, inasmuch as \u201ca man is divinely assisted in treading the path he desires\u201d (Num. Rab. 20:12). Josephus resolves the problem by having God express indignation that Balaam should have tempted him and by having Balaam misunderstand God\u2019s sarcasm in permitting him to go with the envoys: it was all a ruse on God\u2019s part.
\n109. uttering human speech Undoubtedly, one of the greatest challenges that Josephus faced with regard to his credibility as a historian was what to do with the story of Balaam\u2019s donkey that spoke. Indeed, Josephus twice (Ant. 4.109, 110) states that the donkey spoke with a human voice. Josephus might have omitted the incident, as he did several other episodes in the Bible. Perhaps Josephus was not deterred from including it because his audience was familiar with the account of Achilles\u2019s horse, Xanthos, which likewise spoke after being unfairly accused by his master (Il. 19.408\u201317). And just as Balaam\u2019s donkey spoke because God willed it, so Xanthos is said to have spoken because the goddess Hera gave him speech. Both narratives clearly acknowledge that human speech is not natural for animals. Indeed, at the very end of the whole episode of Balaam and not in direct connection with the donkey\u2019s speaking, Josephus includes his familiar refrain: \u201cOn this narrative readers are free to think what they please\u201d (Ant. 4.158). Even so, Josephus has taken several steps to make the narrative of the talking donkey less bizarre: (1) he condenses the Bible\u2019s 15 verses (Num. 22:21\u201335) to four short paragraphs; (2) whereas in the Bible Balaam strikes his donkey three times, Josephus has him doing so only once (Ant. 4.108\u20139); (3) the Bible has the donkey speaking twice, Josephus only once (4.109); (4) whereas the Bible states that the LORD actually opened the mouth of the donkey (Num. 22:28), Josephus asserts merely that she became conscious of the divine spirit approaching her (Ant. 4.108); (5) readers might well have wondered why a donkey with the supernatural power to speak should be sensitive to pain, as she is in the biblical account (Num. 22:28); perhaps for this reason Josephus represents the donkey as insensible to the blows with which Balaam struck her (Ant. 4.108); and (6) in the Bible when the donkey speaks, Balaam evidences no amazement (Num. 22:29); Josephus, aware that his readers would wonder why a man hearing an animal speak would show no astonishment, declares that Balaam was aghast (Ant. 4.110). In any case, the Bible\u2019s picture of Balaam is much harsher than Josephus\u2019s. In the Bible Balaam is angry (Num. 22:27) and even threatens to kill the animal (22:29), whereas Josephus omits both points. Indeed, he effectively excuses Balaam on the ground that the seer had failed to understand God\u2019s purpose. Moreover, whereas in the Bible the donkey censures Balaam (22:30), the strength of this rebuke is considerably diminished by Josephus\u2019s mere report of it here.
\n113. inflexible destiny The same inflexibility is emphasized in Tg. Ps.-J. on Num. 23:8. Josephus avoids blaming Balaam by declaring, in this addition to the biblical text (Num. 23:4), that Balaam realized that his prophecy was governed by inflexible fate. This casts Balaam as something of a Stoic sage.
\n114. providence The concept of providence, so central in Stoic thought and in Antiquities generally, is introduced several times by Josephus in the Balaam pericope in addition to this passage (Ant. 4.117, 128, 157).
\nhappier than all others In the Bible (Num. 23:9) Balaam says that the Israelites shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations. Josephus, aware of the misanthropy charge, avoids presenting the Israelites as sundered off from all other peoples. Instead he speaks of the excellence of the Israelites as compared with other peoples and has Balaam assert that God has given the Israelites the potential to become the happiest of all peoples.
\n116. inhabited world Josephus clearly shifts the focus from the land of Israel to the Diaspora: although the Israelites are now circumscribed by the land of Canaan, the habitable world, that is, the Diaspora, lies before them as an everlasting habitation.
\n125. most distinguished cities Presumably this would include Jerusalem, which was not yet established as the capital of the Israelite state until hundreds of years later by David. If Balaam foretells the calamities that will befall kings and cities of the highest celebrity, Josephus keeps this prophecy cryptic enough so that Gentile readers will not necessarily connect it with Rome, just as he has a similar cryptic prophecy in connection with the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s dream in his pericope of Daniel (Ant. 10.210). Josephus does not paraphrase the biblical passage (Num. 24:17\u201318) that predicts that a star out of Jacob and a scepter out of Israel will conquer Edom and Seir. Such a prediction was interpreted messianically by Rabbi Akiva (Lev. Rab. 2:54), who, very significantly, nowhere articulates the hope for a personal messiah, since this would involve the defeat of Rome.
\nin the future Josephus omits Balaam\u2019s prophecy (Num. 24:17\u201324) that the Israelites will crush the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Amalekites. He likewise omits that ships from Kittim (identified by some of Josephus\u2019s contemporaries with the Romans; see 1QpHab 3:4, 9\u201311) shall crush Ashur and Eber and that the Kittim themselves will be overthrown\u2014a prediction that Josephus, who was so indebted to the Romans, could hardly have included.<\/p>\n
The Death of Moses<\/p>\n
Louis H. Feldman<\/p>\n
The biblical account of the death of Moses (Deut. 34:1\u20138) comprises only eight verses. Josephus has expanded this to 12 paragraphs in Jewish Antiquities (4.320\u201331). Not only has he added a graphic description of the lament of the Israelites for him in anticipation of his death, but he has even described his disappearance in tones that are reminiscent of the disappearance in death of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11\u201312), as well as the disappearances in death of Aeneas and Romulus. Furthermore, a certain senator named Numerius Atticus (in Suetonius, Augustus 94.4) swore that he had seen the emperor Augustus after his death ascend to heaven. Because there were some traditions in Rabbinic circles and in Samaritan writings that Moses did not die, Josephus was particularly concerned to refute this view. Moreover, he took great pains to make sure that Moses would not be worshiped as a god. This was particularly necessary in view of the frequency among the Greeks of the apotheosis of heroes, such as Dionysus, Heracles, and Asclepius.
\nIn the case of Moses, there is a significant difference between the biblical account and Josephus\u2019s version in that in the Bible (Deut. 31:16) God tells Moses that he is to die, whereas in Josephus (Ant. 4.315) Moses, the central figure in this panorama, announces to the Israelites his impending death. In the Bible it is only after Moses\u2019s death that the Israelites bewail him for 30 days, but there is no description of the wailing itself (Deut. 34:8). In Josephus we have a much more dramatic scene: the wailing is more moving because it takes place after Moses has told the Israelites about his approaching death but while he is still very much alive. Josephus very emotionally adds that all the Israelites followed Moses to the place where he was going to disappear and that Moses, in full command of the situation like the director of an oratorio and in a scene reminiscent of Moses\u2019s direction of the crucial battle against Amalek, signaled with his hand to those who were far off to remain quiet, while urging those who were closer not to make his departure tearful by following him.
\nMoses is the leader par excellence of the people to the very end. Josephus (Ant. 4.323\u201326), almost like a lawyer, stresses the point that the Israelites as a group followed Moses to the place where he was going to disappear. They are, therefore, witnesses to the fact that he did die and thus combat the view that he did not die at all. Josephus, the scientific historian, following in the footsteps of his model Thucydides and concerned that his credibility should not be questioned, adds that Moses has written of himself that he died because he feared that the Israelites might dare to say that because of his tremendous virtue he had gone up to the Divinity. Indeed, it is significant that Josephus (Ant. 2.293) totally omits the biblical statements in which God tells Moses that Aaron will be his mouth and that Moses will be his \u201cGod\u201d (Exod. 4:16) and in which God tells Moses that he has made him a \u201cGod\u201d to Pharaoh (7:1), since such a view would seem to contradict strict monotheism.
\nSee also \u201cJosephus and His Writings,\u201d elsewhere in these volumes.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Begg, C. T. \u201cJosephus\u2019s Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses: Some Observations.\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 691\u201393.
\nFeldman, L. H., ed. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134, 471\u201375. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\nGaster, M. The Asatir: The Samaritan Book of the \u201cSecrets of Moses\u201d together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses. Oriental Translation Fund n.s. 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927.
\nJacobson, H. \u201cJosephus on the Death of Moses.\u201d In Tria lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, edited by H. D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt. Liverpool Classical Papers 3. Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly.
\nKushelevsky, B. Moses and the Angel of Death. New York: Lang, 1995.
\nPurvis, J. D. \u201cSamaritan Traditions on the Death of Moses.\u201d In Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers, edited by George W. E. Nickelsburg, 93\u2013117. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 4. Cambridge MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973.
\nTabor, J. D. \u201c \u2018Returning to the Divinity\u2019: Josephus\u2019 Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses.\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 225\u201338.
\nTalbert, C. H. \u201cThe Concept of Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity.\u201d Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 419\u201336.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
320. at the end of his life See Deut. 33.
\nprophesied Josephus highlights the role of Moses as a prophet, twice identifying him as a prophet when the biblical text does not (Ant. 2.327 vs. Exod. 14:13; Ant. 4.320 vs. Deut. 33:1).
\nburst into tears The description of the wailing for Moses\u2019s approaching death becomes much more graphic in Josephus\u2019s version because it occurs after Moses has told the Israelites about his approaching death but while he is still alive. Moses\u2019s greatness is aggrandized by the children, in their lament, understanding his virtues beyond their years. Most poignant of all is that Moses himself is reduced to tears when he sees the laments of the people.
\n321. a conflict This entire paragraph is Josephus\u2019s addition.
\n322. the will of God and by a law of nature Josephus is probably thinking of the parallels in Stoic outlook, such as we find in the cases of Seneca the Younger and the later Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
\nwas overcome with weeping In this addition to the biblical text, noting that Moses himself was reduced to tears, Josephus adds an overwhelming humanizing quality in Moses.
\nwhat was being done by the people Josephus appears to have added this in order that Moses should not appear to have received less honor than Aaron, who died (Ant. 4.83) with the eyes of the multitude upon him.
\n323. to remain quiet Moses, in his farewell, telling the people not to weep is reminiscent of Socrates\u2019s words to his disciples, telling them not to weep, in Plato\u2019s Phaedo 117D7\u2013E1, as he faces his final moments alone.
\n324. Eleazar \u2026 and \u2026 Joshua This entire paragraph is Josephus\u2019s addition to the biblical text. It is significant that those accompanying Moses are led by the religious head of state, the high priest Eleazar, and by the commander-in-chief of the army and Moses\u2019s successor, Joshua.
\n325. came to the mountain called Abaris Josephus omits the statement (Deut. 34:1\u20134) that God showed Moses the entire Land of Israel from the top of Pisgah to Mount Nebo. He omits God\u2019s explanation to Moses as to why he was not permitted to enter the Land of Israel, namely that he committed an offense against him at the waters of Meribath-kadesh (Deut. 32:51).
\nthe best land of the Canaanites Josephus omits the statement that God showed Moses the entire Land of Israel, presumably because it would have been embarrassing to present the Jewish revolutionaries\u2019 claim to the entire land and thus appear to justify their claim to independence from Roman rule.
\n326. a cloud suddenly stood over him and he disappeared Most strikingly, to the biblical account of Moses\u2019s death Josephus has added lamenting people, a walk to the mountain, companions (Eleazar and Joshua) on Moses\u2019s final walk, and disappearance while talking, details that are found in no other postbiblical source, though these sources recount Moses\u2019s last hours in far greater detail than does the Bible. And yet, it is precisely these details that are found in Sophocles\u2019s Oedipus at Colonus (notably 1648\u201364), one of Josephus\u2019s favorite authors.
\nhe has written of himself Most strikingly, Josephus has added that Moses has written of himself in the Bible that he died. Josephus was apparently troubled, as was the Talmud (BB 15a) by the question as to how Moses could have written about his own death. Another view that Josephus attempted to refute was that Moses, because of his abundant virtue, never died. This was apparently a view held by some of the Rabbis (Sot. 13b). It is the view similarly held by Josephus\u2019s presumed contemporary, Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 19.12). Likewise, the pseudepigraphic Assumption of Moses 1:15 appears to combat the view that Moses did not die and that Moses was translated to heaven, since Moses is quoted as saying, \u201cAnd now I am going in the presence of all the people to rest with my fathers.\u201d Indeed, some Jewish circles must have portrayed Moses as becoming immortal, since we find that Celsus (in Origen, Against Celsus 1:21) says that Moses attained divine honors. The Samaritans elevate Moses to a role as, in effect, a second God. Thus, in the Samaritan book of Memar 5:3 Moses died without realizing that his life had departed from him. According to the Samaritan book of Asatir, Moses occupies a position in the center of time; his life is the high point of human history.
\nthat he died Josephus has omitted the statement (Deut. 34:5) that Moses died \u201cat the command of the LORD\u201d (lit., \u201con the mouth\u201d), which the Talmud (BB 17a) understands to mean \u201cby a kiss,\u201d presumably because Josephus\u2019s more sophisticated readers would find such a view difficult to accept.
\nhe was afraid Josephus, addressing his Greek readers, was aware that apotheosis of heroes, such as Dionysus, Heracles, and Asclepius, was frequent among the Greeks. This tendency to apotheosis of Moses may be seen in the Greco-Jewish Ezekiel the Tragedian. In this play (Exagoge 68\u201389) Moses says that he dreamed about a great throne on top of Mount Sinai on which a noble man (presumably God) was seated with a crown and a scepter, which he gave to Moses. Indeed, the motif of the apotheosis of rulers and philosophers became so widespread that it became the subject of satire in the Apolocyntosis of Josephus\u2019s older contemporary Seneca the Younger and in the Parliament of the Gods of the 2nd-century Lucian, but Josephus does not include the statement that God himself buried Moses.<\/p>\n
Mosaic Constitution<\/p>\n
David M. Goldenberg<\/p>\n
In his history Jewish Antiquities, Josephus begins with and paraphrases the Hebrew Bible. His treatment of the biblical legal material is found in books 3 (\u00a7\u00a7224\u201386) and 4 (\u00a7\u00a767\u201375, 199\u2013301). The commentary below, on a selected portion of this material (Ant. 4.260\u201377, 288) illustrates how Josephus paraphrased the Bible. It shows that many of his additions and changes to the biblical text are paralleled in other writings, such as Proverbs and Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ant. 4.260\u201364, 267), and in contemporaneous biblical interpretation, as reflected in exegesis or in practice. Most prominent among these parallels are those found in the literature of the early Rabbis, the tannaim. We thus find extrabiblical tannaitic parallels to Josephus\u2019s understanding of a number of the laws treated in these sections:<\/p>\n
the obligation and specifics of honoring parents (Ant. 4.260\u201364)
\nthe hanging, exposure, and burial of an executed criminal (\u00a7\u00a7263\u201364)
\nthe importance of burial for the dead (\u00a7265)
\nthe time when and means by which collateral may be taken on a loan (\u00a7\u00a7268\u201369)
\nthe penalty of double repayment for theft (\u00a7271)
\nthe time when the biblical law concerning forced entry and theft applies (\u00a7271)
\nthe conditions under which a fourfold or fivefold penalty applies (\u00a7272)
\nthe obligations incumbent on a finder of lost objects, including a search for the owner, a public announcement, the content of the announcement, and an oath of innocence before keeping the object (\u00a7274)
\nthe reasons and the conditions under which one is obligated to help animals in distress (\u00a7275)
\nthe requirement to give directions to one lost and the prohibition against misleading someone on the road (\u00a7276)
\nthe prohibition against cursing someone not present (\u00a7276; the Rabbinic parallel may be tannaitic)
\nthe requirement of monetary compensation for one who killed another when the death was not immediate (\u00a7277)
\nthe cases when the prohibition against withholding wages applies (\u00a7288).<\/p>\n
The similarities with tannaitic literature extend not only to individual interpretations but also to the reasons for the laws (\u00a7\u00a7262, 270, 275); the juxtaposition and arrangement of various laws (\u00a7\u00a7273, 276); the internal structure of laws that are more specific than their biblical counterparts (\u00a7\u00a7269, 271, 274, 276, 277, 288); and hermeneutical techniques (\u00a7267).
\nThe element of structure is particularly instructive, for Josephus\u2019s breakdown of each biblical law into more precisely defined cases is typical in the development of any legal system. Indeed, we see that in almost every case, the constituent elements of these laws as they are divided by Josephus are also found in the tannaitic legal system, the halakhah. The common elements in Josephus and in tannaitic writings provide evidence for an extrabiblical (but biblically based) corpus of legal traditions (whether written or oral; whether exegetically citing and annotating the biblical text or apodictically listing the laws without reference to the biblical text), which served as a source both for Josephus and for later tannaitic literature. This extrabiblical body of tradition would have been one of the lenses through which Josephus viewed and understood the Bible.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
It is important, at this stage in our knowledge of the ancient Jewish world, not to go beyond the evidence and say, for example, that such a corpus of material equates with the later Rabbinic literature, or that it necessarily served as the single source of that literature, and certainly not that it constituted the only body of legal traditions existing at the time of Josephus. We know of other legal traditions, such as those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which are also recorded by Josephus as the Jewish law (e.g., J.W. 5.227 and Ant. 3.261 = 11QTemple 45.15\u201317). What the evidence allows us to say is that Josephus\u2019s biblical laws neither represent a straightforward transmission of the biblical text nor are they exclusively Josephus\u2019s own interpretation. Rather, they indicate that there was an existing body of interpretation that is heavily paralleled in later Rabbinic halakhah and that served as Josephus\u2019s primary source for reading and understanding the corresponding portions of Scripture. Although this information may or may not support Josephus\u2019s self-identification with the Pharisees\u2014generally assumed to be precursors of the tannaim, the early Rabbis\u2014it certainly argues for the antiquity of significant parts of Rabbinic halakhah, a conclusion corroborated in recent years from the Dead Sea documents.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Most of the earlier work on Josephus\u2019s parallels in Rabbinic literature was written in German and French; more recently, in Hebrew. Works that deal with this topic in English include:<\/p>\n
Blidstein, Gerald. Honor Thy Father and Mother: Filial Responsibility in Jewish Law and Ethics. New York: Ktav, 1975.
\nFeldman, Louis. \u201cTorah and Greek Culture in Josephus.\u201d The Torah U-Madda Journal 7 (1997): 48\u201359.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cUse, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus.\u201d In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Jan Mulder, 507\u201318. CRINT, Section 2. Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud 1. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Judaean Antiquities 1\u20134. Vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\nGoldenberg, David. \u201cThe Halakha in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature.\u201d JQR 67 (1976): 30\u201343.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cHalakhah in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative Study.\u201d PhD diss., Dropsie College, 1978.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cAnt. 4.277 and 288 Compared with Early Rabbinic Law.\u201d In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 198\u2013211. Detroit MI: Wayne State University Press, 1987.
\nThackeray, H. St. J., trans. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities I\u2013IV. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
\nVermes, Geza. \u201cA Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus.\u201d Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): 289\u2013303.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
260\u201364 These sections paraphrase Deut. 21:18\u201321, the law concerning the rebellious son. The Bible is specific regarding the offense of the rebellious son: \u201cHe is a glutton and a drunkard\u201d (21:20). Josephus, on the other hand, understands the verses as referring in general to dishonor of parents, taking \u201ca glutton and a drunkard\u201d as an example of, or a term for, dishonor. Similarly Philo understood these verses as referring in general to dishonor toward parents (Spec. Laws 2.224\u201341). The sources for this interpretation are Exod. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9, which require a death penalty for one who meqallels his parents, with the Hebrew word being understood as \u201cto dishonor\u201d (rather than the traditional rendering \u201cto curse\u201d), an interpretation incorporated into some of the Palestinian Targums to these verses. So too does Ben Sira (3:11) understand the Hebrew q-l-l as meaning \u201cdishonor.\u201d Taking Deut. 21:18\u201321 as referring in general to the obligation of honoring parents, Josephus\u2019s text in Ant. 4.260\u201364 becomes understandable as reflecting Jewish biblical interpretation of the time, as will be seen below.
\n260. whether because of shame or lack of understanding Here, Josephus has added to the biblical text a reason for the youth\u2019s misbehavior. This extrabiblical flourish is paralleled in Proverbs: in three verses that deal with a son\u2019s behavior toward his father (Prov. 10:5; 14:35; 17:2), shame is opposed to understanding or intelligence; that is, to act shamefully or with a lack of intelligence exhibits improper behavior toward a parent. A particularly close parallel to Josephus is Prov. 28:7, \u201cAn intelligent son [ben mevin] heeds instruction, \/But he who keeps company with gluttons [zolelim] disgraces [or \u201cshames\u201d yakhlim; RSV, NRSV] his father,\u201d which clearly echoes Deut. 21:20, \u201c \u2018This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton [zolel] and a drunkard.\u2019 \u201d Thus, improper behavior toward a father is exemplified by acting in a shameful or unintelligent manner. Whether Josephus drew his addition directly from Proverbs or from a contemporary understanding of Deut. 21:20, which is also reflected in Proverbs, cannot be determined. Clearly, though, in either case Josephus\u2019s addition derives from the Jewish exegetical environment.
\nlet the parents first of all warn them with words Josephus goes on to say that if words don\u2019t work, the child is put to death. Philo, however, says that there was another stage after the oral admonition and before the death penalty, that of beating (Spec. Laws 2.232). Tannaitic law similarly has a three-stage process. Josephus may have taken the biblical \u201ceven after they discipline him [ve-yiseru]\u201d to mean an oral admonition because of the following words in the verse, \u201c[he] will not listen to them,\u201d and the words in verse 20 (RSV), \u201che will not obey our voice\u201d (MT: einennu shomea\u2019 be-kolenu), either making this deduction himself or relying on such a translation tradition of ve-yiseru in verse 18, found in both the LXX (paideus\u014dsin, \u201ceducate\u201d) and Targum Onkelos (malpin, \u201cteach, educate\u201d).
\n261. in order that they might have children who would tend them in their old age This is the only specific obligation for children that Josephus mentions, and obviously the neglect of this duty defines \u201cthose youths who scorn their parents and do not grant them their honor.\u201d Contemporaneous Jewish literature understood tending to parents in their old age as a requirement of honoring parents, as did ancient Near Eastern texts. Rabbinic literature specifies: \u201cThe obligations of a son to a father are to provide him food and drink, to dress him and cover him, to lead him in and out, to wash his face, hands, and feet.\u201d The obligation to provide for parents is apparently also seen in the New Testament.
\n261\u201362. we reared you with devotion \u2026 Now, however, \u2026 God also \u2026 considers himself dishonored Josephus gives two reasons for the obligation to honor parents: the parents devote much care to the child\u2019s upbringing, welfare, and training; and honoring parents is tantamount to honoring God, since God is the father of humanity. The implication of the first reason, that honoring parents is repayment of a debt, is stated by Josephus explicitly in Ag. Ap. 2.206: The law hands over to be stoned \u201cone who does not repay the benefits received from [one\u2019s parents].\u201d The same idea is found in Wisdom of Ben Sira, Tobit, Letter of Aristeas, Philo, and pagan Hellenistic literature. Josephus\u2019s second reason for honoring parents, that it is tantamount to honoring God since God is the father of humanity, is found in Philo, possibly Ben Sira, Qumran literature, and several tannaitic sources. Philo: \u201cParents are the servants of God for the propagation of children, and he who dishonors the servant dishonors also the master.\u201d The tannaitic source puts it this way: \u201cGod considers honoring parents equal to honoring him \u2026 for it is written \u2026 thus [Scripture] equated honoring parents to honoring God.\u201d Josephus\u2019s remark that \u201cGod is also annoyed with those who commit an outrage against parents\u201d recalls the tannaitic statement \u201cWhen one troubles one\u2019s parents God says: \u2018It is well that I did not reside with them, for had I done so these children would have troubled me.\u2019 \u201d Further, when Josephus says that because God is the father of the human race he therefore \u201cconsiders himself dishonored when those who have the same title as himself do not obtain from their children what is fitting for them,\u201d we are reminded of the tannaitic proposition that God, father, and mother are partners in the creation of a child.
\n263. neither son nor daughter The biblical text speaks of a son only, as does the Rabbinic interpretation of the law (e.g., M. Sanh. 8:1). Josephus, however, refers to a son or a daughter. This change is in accord with Josephus\u2019s interpretation of Deut. 21:18\u201321 as an instance of honoring parents, which is obligatory on both son and daughter according to tannaitic tradition (e.g., T. Kid. 1:11).
\n264. through constant boldness toward his parents The law concerning the rebellious son required repeated acts of dishonor toward the parents, as is indicated in the biblical \u201cwho does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him\u201d (Deut. 21:18). So also Philo and ancient Near Eastern texts require that the rebellious son be a habitual offender.
\nlet him \u2026 be stoned The Bible requires a death penalty for one who \u201cis a glutton and a drunkard\u201d (Deut. 21:20) but says nothing about a punishment for one who does not fulfill the general commandment to honor one\u2019s parents. In line with his understanding that this biblical text is but one instance of dishonoring parents, Josephus extends the death penalty to all who dishonor parents, repeating this interpretation with even greater severity in Ag. Ap. 2.217 (\u201cMere intention of doing wrong to one\u2019s parents \u2026 is followed by instant death\u201d). Similarly Philo understands the biblical law to require death for dishonor to parents (Spec. Laws 2.232, 248; see also Hypoth. 8.7.2). This was apparently the Pharisaic tradition, as recorded by Matthew and Mark. The Bible indicates a trial (\u201cHis father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town \u2026\u201d [Deut. 21:19\u201320]), which is reflected in the targumic translations and became part of tannaitic law. Josephus, however, says nothing of a trial, and seems to view the parents as holding sole authority to order the death of their recalcitrant child. Josephus says this explicitly later, in the narrative of the trials of Herod\u2019s sons. Philo too puts the authority for the death penalty in the hands of the parents (Spec. Laws 2.232). It is because the parents have such a right by law or custom that Josephus prefaces his account with the words, \u201cFor they are autonomous judges over their sons\u201d (Ant. 4.260). This clause is not meant to explain the immediately preceding \u201clet the parents first of all warn them with words,\u201d for which no judicial authority is necessary, but rather to explain the entire process, of which oral admonition is the first step and a death sentence the last. Despite the explicit statement in the Bible that the rebellious son must be judged by the elders of the town, the practice, as attested by Josephus and Philo, was that the father and mother acted as judge. This may be due to the influence of the Roman law of patria potestas, which gave the father such authority over his children. In any case, tannaitic law\u2014taking its cue from the biblical verse\u2014required a judicial procedure, although it may have preserved an element of the earlier practice in allowing the parents the right of pardon.
\nAfter remaining during the whole day in the sight of all The practice of delayed burial for executed criminals or sinners is mentioned by Josephus elsewhere: \u201cWith us it is ordained that the body of a suicide should be exposed unburied until sunset\u201d (J.W. 3.377). In many nations of antiquity, executed criminals and suicides did not receive burial (or at least, proper funeral rights). Similarly the slain enemy was left unburied by the Jews, as well as other peoples of antiquity, in the biblical and Hellenistic periods. An echo of this practice may perhaps be seen in the tannaitic law that an executed criminal is not buried in his family tomb. The court had special cemeteries for criminals, where the bodies were deposited in ledges hollowed out of rock. After the body had decomposed, the bones were collected and deposited in the family tomb (M. Sanh. 6:5). The reason given in Rabbinic sources for this practice is that \u201cthe pious and the wicked are not to be buried side by side.\u201d After the body has decomposed, the criminal\u2019s sins have been expiated, he is no longer considered wicked, and he may be buried with the pious (J. Sanh. 6:12, 23d; B. Sanh. 47a\u2013b).
\nduring the whole day Similarly, Ant. 4.202 says that the blasphemer is hung \u201cfor a day.\u201d Some think that this deviates from Rabbinic tradition, which limits the hanging to a short period of time. The Greek, however, does not necessarily mean \u201can entire day\u201d but \u201cthe remainder of the day.\u201d Even the reading in Ant. 4.264 (hol\u0113s h\u0113maras), which is also found in a variant to Ant. 4.202, may mean only the \u201cremainder of the day.\u201d The (6th-century?) Latin translation of Josephus has an interesting variant to our text: \u201cand after being hung from a plank [or, tree] and remaining during the whole day in the sight of all.\u201d The only possible biblical source for this variant is Deut. 21:22\u201323 NRSV: \u201cWhen someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day.\u201d Since these verses immediately follow the law of the rebellious son, some assume that Josephus drew on them, extending the law to the rebellious son as well, and that therefore the Latin represents the original reading in Josephus. However, Deut. 21:22\u201323 was understood by Josephus to refer to the blasphemer, and apparently to the blasphemer alone: \u201cLet him who blasphemes God be stoned then hung for a day, and buried ignominiously and in obscurity\u201d (Ant. 4.202). This interpretation is paralleled in an early Rabbinic tradition (R. Joshua), contemporaneous with Josephus, which interpreted Deut. 21:22\u201323 as referring only to a blasphemer (and an idolator). In sum, the Greek text of Josephus (exposure with no mention of hanging) appears to be the original, and reflects contemporary practice, while the biblical text speaking of hanging is applied by Josephus to the blasphemer, as it is by the tannaim as well.
\nlet him be buried at night Several other times Josephus mentions night burial for executed criminals. In recounting Achan\u2019s execution recorded in Josh. 7:25, Josephus adds to the biblical account that Achan \u201cat night was given the ignominious burial proper to the condemned\u201d (Ant. 5.44). After the execution of Herod\u2019s sons Alexander and Aristobulos, Josephus says that the bodies were laid to rest at night (Ant. 16.394). Also, as noted in the comment on 4.264, After remaining \u2026, Josephus writes that \u201cwith us it is ordained that the body of a suicide should be exposed unburied until sunset\u201d (J.W. 3.377), thus implying a burial at, or shortly after, sunset for one who kills himself. Finally, in Ant. 4.202 Josephus says, \u201cLet him who blasphemes God be stoned then hung for a day, and buried ignominiously and in obscurity [aphan\u014ds].\u201d Here too the implication is that the burial takes place after sunset, not only because it occurs after being hung during the day, but also because the term \u201cobscurity\u201d implies a nighttime burial; aphan\u014ds means literally \u201cunseen.\u201d Hints of the practice of sunset burial for executed criminals appear in tannaitic literature, where explanations of Deut. 21:21\u201323 state that the judicial decision, the execution, and the hanging are carried out immediately before sunset. Since the corpse must not remain unburied overnight (Sifre Deut. 221; M. Sanh. 6:4), the body must have been buried during the night, presumably shortly after sunset. Whether the tannaitic explication represents actual practice or not, it apparently indicates a knowledge of night burial. The Palestinian Targums also know of a sunset burial for criminals. In an addition to Num. 25:4 (\u201cTake all the ringleaders and have them publicly impaled before the LORD\u201d), the Palestinain Targums add: \u201cand at the setting of the sun you shall take them down and bury them.\u201d
\n265. Thus shall it be While syntactically \u201cit\u201d could refer to exposure, hanging (accepting the Latin reading), or night burial, Josephus most probably is referring to burial, since he continues, \u201cLet burial be given even to your enemies.\u201d Josephus refers to the importance of burial in several other places. To deny someone burial, he says, is a dishonor (Ant. 13.403), such treatment being considered terrible (Ant. 6.375, an addition to the biblical narrative), a great impiety (J.W. 4.317), an annulment of the laws of nature, and \u201can outrage upon humanity and a pollution of the Deity\u201d (J.W. 4.382\u201383). Jews would risk their lives to provide burial for a dead body (J.W. 4.331\u201332, 383; cf. J.W. 5.33, 360). Indeed, Jewish law demanded that \u201cwe must \u2026 not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies\u201d (Ag. Ap. 2.211). Such care for burial was extended as well to the executed criminals (Ant. 4.264, J.W. 4.317), and to the enemy slain in war (Ant. 4.265, J.W. 3.377), as we have seen. This concern for burial is found also in other Jewish sources. Numerous biblical passages reflect the view that nonburial is a terrible disgrace. Tobit risked his life providing burial, as did those who removed R. Akiva\u2019s body from the prison where the Rabbi had died. Speaking of Jewish law and custom, Philo says that one \u201cmust not debar dead bodies from burial, but throw upon them as much earth as piety demands\u201d (Hypoth. 7.7 [358]). Indeed, tannaitic law requires that if one finds an unattended corpse, Jewish or non-Jewish, one must bury it. This concern extended as well to burial of the slain enemy.
\nThus shall it be too with all who howsoever are condemned by the laws to be put to death The translation given is Thackeray\u2019s. The implication of Feldman\u2019s translation (\u201cThus let those who in any way whatever have been condemned by the laws be put to death\u201d) is that all who are condemned to death are to be executed in a similar way, i.e., by stoning. However, the Greek reads, \u201cThus let those who in any way whatever have been condemned by the laws to be put to death,\u201d which is more accurately reflected in Thackeray\u2019s translation. Feldman\u2019s translation may only be due to a typo: the accidental deletion of \u201cto\u201d before \u201cbe put to death.\u201d
\n266\u201370 In these sections, Josephus treats the laws concerning loans: the obligation of the lender to lend without interest to a fellow Jew (266), the obligation of the borrower to repay the loan on time (267), and the obligations of the borrower if a pledge or security has been taken against the loan (268\u201370). The biblical sources are Exod. 22:24\u201326; Lev. 25:35\u201337; Deut. 23:20\u201321; 24:6, 10\u201313.
\n266. meat or drink While the Bible speaks of lending money or food, Josephus mentions only food; see the comment below on Ant. 4.267. Josephus mentions the prohibition of taking interest also in Ag. Ap. 2.208, although he does not, in that apologetic work, mention that the law is restricted to a fellow Hebrew (see also note 54). Most of Josephus\u2019s comments in Ant. 4.266 are built on biblical notions. That it is not just to profit from the misfortunes of a compatriot (homophylou, lit. \u201cof the same race or tribe\u201d) is implied in Exod. 22:24\u201326 and Lev. 25:35\u201337, as well as elsewhere in the Bible, and the idea that one who lends to those in need receives God\u2019s recompense in return is stated in Deut. 23:21 (cf. 24:13), as well as elsewhere in the Bible. Deuteronomy 24:13, the biblical verse that concludes the laws of pledges with the statement that the borrower will bless the lender, was probably the source for Josephus\u2019s statement that the lender receives the borrower\u2019s gratitude. This verse may have also been the impetus for Josephus\u2019s joining the borrower\u2019s gratitude with God\u2019s recompense: \u201cthat he [the borrower] may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And it shall be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.\u201d Josephus\u2019s original contribution in this section seems to be the idea that the lender ought to consider the borrower\u2019s gratitude and God\u2019s recompense as the interest in lieu of monetary gain.
\n267. silver or produce of any kind, liquid or solid The biblical texts refer to clothing (Exod. 22:25\u201326) and \u201ca loan of any sort\u201d (Deut. 24:10). Josephus\u2019s phrasing \u201csilver or produce\u201d apparently derives from \u201cmoney\u201d and \u201cfood\u201d mentioned in the biblical law of interest (Lev. 25:37; Deut. 23:20; Exod. 22:24, \u201cmoney\u201d), which he had just dealt with and which precedes the law of pledges in the Bible. Both interest and pledges fall under the category of loans, and Josephus therefore drew descriptive elements from one law and applied it to the other. Such borrowing is particularly reasonable when the two laws follow each other in the Bible, as they do in this case. This technique is similar to the tannaitic hermeneutical rule of semukhin, according to which elements enunciated in one law may be applied to another if the two laws are juxtaposed in Scripture. The obligation of the borrower to repay a loan on time, and by doing so enabling the borrower to draw a loan again if need be, is found in Sir. 29:2\u20133: \u201cLend to your neighbor in his time of need; repay your neighbor when a loan falls due. Keep your promise and be honest with him, and on every occasion you will find what you need\u201d (NRSV). It is clear from the Syriac translation that \u201cwhat you need\u201d is to be sought with the lender: \u201cand you will always find your needs with him,\u201d that is, the lender.
\nwith their own possessions Several manuscripts read \u201ctheir\u201d (aut\u014dn), possibly referring to the lender, in place of \u201ctheir own\u201d (haut\u014dn), referring to the borrower, but this reading is probably erroneous, as these manuscripts do not record any variant for the preceding \u201cas though\u201d (h\u014dsper).
\n268 A paraphrase of Deut. 24:10\u201311. Josephus is clearly speaking of a pledge taken when the debtor has not repaid the loan on time, and not a pledge taken at the time when the loan was made. The biblical text offers no indication as to the time the pledge is taken, although \u201cso far as is known, in Israel this property was not taken at the time of the loan.\u201d As Josephus, so too the Mishnah discusses pledges taken when repayment has not been made.
\none must not \u2026 seize a pledge before judgment has been given The Bible says nothing of a judgment before the pledge may be taken, but tannaitic literature does: \u201cIf one makes a loan to his fellow, he may take a pledge only through the court.\u201d
\nthe pledge should be asked for at the door That the creditor may not enter the debtor\u2019s home is stated in Deut. 24:10.
\nthe debtor should bring it of himself While the sources cited in note 49 speak of a court functionary taking the pledge, one tannaitic source refers to the creditor himself, as is implied in the biblical text and stated by Josephus: \u201cA creditor who comes to take a pledge should not enter the [debtor\u2019s] house to do so but he should stand outside and the [debtor] should go in and retrieve the pledge.\u201d
\n269 A paraphrase of Exod. 22:25\u201326 and Deut. 24:12\u201313. To the biblical statements that if the borrower is poor, the lender should return the pledge at sundown, Josephus adds the corollary that if the borrower is well-to-do, the lender may retain possession until restitution is made. This extrabiblical notion is found in a tannaitic text: \u201c \u2018If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge\u2019 (Deut. 24:12)\u2014thus, if he be well-to-do, you may sleep with his pledge.\u201d Josephus\u2019s phrase \u201cGod by His nature according pity to the poor\u201d apparently derives from the text in Exodus (22:25\u201326): \u201cIf you take your neighbor\u2019s garment in pledge, you must return it to him before the sun sets; it is his only clothing, the sole covering for his skin. In what else shall he sleep? Therefore, if he cries out to Me, I will pay heed, for I am compassionate.\u201d
\n270 A paraphrase of Deut. 24:6. The reason given by Josephus why a millstone may not be taken in pledge\u2014that it is used to prepare food and thus sustain life\u2014is implicit in the biblical verse (\u201cfor he would be taking a life in pledge\u201d) and is the meaning given to the verse in the Targums, tannaitic literature, and Philo.
\n271 This section deals with various laws of theft, which Josephus, or his source, has brought together from disparate biblical verses: Exod. 21:16 and Deut. 24:7; Exod. 21:37\u201322:3; and Exod. 22:6\u20138. Josephus has also rearranged the biblical order, putting the law of a break-in after the law of theft of money rather than after the law of theft of cattle and before monetary theft, as in the Bible.
\nFor the stealing of a person Josephus speaks of stealing a person in general, as does the Masoretic Text (MT) of Exod. 21:16, while Deut. 24:7 and the LXX of Exodus speak of an \u201cIsraelite.\u201d Whether or not Josephus chose \u201cperson\u201d over \u201cIsraelite\u201d for apologetic reasons, as some suggest, the Hebrew text of Exod. 21:16 would have provided Josephus the necessary support for his rendition of the law\u2014assuming, of course, that the Hebrew text before Josephus was the same as the MT.
\nthe purloiner of gold or silver shall pay double the sum The Bible (Exod. 22:6\u20138) treats the law of theft of money or inanimate objects only in the case where these items have been entrusted to another to watch and are stolen from his possession. On the other hand, a case of simple theft is mentioned only in the case of an \u201cox or a sheep\u201d (Exod. 21:37\u201322:3). In both cases\u2014simple theft, and theft from the one entrusted\u2014if the thief is caught, he pays double the value of the stolen object (unless the ox or sheep has been slaughtered or sold). Josephus drew the obvious conclusion, as did the tannaim, that theft is theft, whether from the original owner or from the one entrusted with the object.
\nHe who kills another while engaged in burglary shall be innocent This is a paraphrase of Exod. 22:1 (NRSV 22:2, \u201cIf a thief is found breaking in, and is beaten to death, no bloodguilt is incurred.\u201d), but the following verse restricts the law to a case that occurs at night: \u201cIf the sun has risen on him, there is bloodguilt in that case,\u201d and so the law was understood by Philo. Tannaitic law, however, interprets this verse metaphorically, and thus, like Josephus, draws no distinction between day and night.
\nEven though the thief were yet but breaking through his wall Josephus\u2019s \u2018breaking through his wall\u2019 explains the MT mah. teret, which is similarly explained by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (h.rk\u2019 dk-wtl\u2019). The qualification \u201ceven though\u201d implies that the homeowner is innocent whether the thief is killed after he has already broken in or even while breaking in. Exodus 22:1 speaks only of a thief found while breaking in (or in the breach). Apparently Josephus understood the verse in a broader sense, not restricted in time to the moment of breaking through, or in space to the place of the breach. After all, if the homeowner is innocent for killing a thief in the act of breaking in, he should certainly be innocent for doing so once the thief has already broken into the house and poses a greater danger to the owner\u2019s life. One tannaitic statement goes further and declares that the homeowner is innocent even if he kills the thief outside leaving the house after the theft.
\n272. He who steals a head of cattle Exodus 21:37 has \u201can ox or a sheep.\u201d The Hebrew word translated \u201csheep\u201d (seh) has the meaning of \u201csmall livestock,\u201d including especially goats as well as sheep. This was also the understanding of the tannaim. Josephus\u2019s \u201ccattle\u201d (bosk\u0113ma; or \u201cfarm animals\u201d as Feldman translates) reflects that understanding.
\nshall pay fourfold \u2026 fivefold According to the Bible this penalty is assessed only if the animal was either sold or slaughtered. As Josephus, so too Philo (Spec. Laws 4.12) refers to the law of fourfold and fivefold without mention of selling or slaughtering. Although the Mishnah (BK 7:1) and Tosefta (BK 7:12) follow the Bible in requiring sale or slaughter, one tannaitic text omits this qualification, as do Josephus and Philo, perhaps, however, only for stylistic reasons. In Ant. 16.3, Josephus says that \u201cthe laws ordered that a thief was to pay a fourfold fine,\u201d without any qualification of what was stolen. This all-encompassing statement contradicts Josephus\u2019s statement in Ant. 4.271\u201372 that stealing inanimate objects (\u201cgold or silver\u201d) requires a penalty of double repayment. There are, however, parallels that are strikingly similar to Josephus\u2019s statement in Ant. 16.3. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael states, \u201c[If one steals] clothing, fruit, utensils, domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, he repays fourfold or fivefold;\u201d and Luke 19:8 has Zacchaeus says to Jesus: \u201cLook, half of my possessions, LORD, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.\u201d
\nthe imposed amount Greek epitimion, \u201cthe value of the fine.\u201d This presumably differs from the biblical \u201che shall be sold for his theft\u201d (Exod. 22:2), meaning the value of the animal only, which is indeed the tannaitic understanding. Some have suggested that Josephus (and Philo, Spec. Laws 4.3) reflects the law as it was practiced in his day.
\nshall become the slave of those who had him condemned Exodus 22:2 says that he should be sold into slavery; it does not say that he should become a slave to the person from whom he stole. Two solutions have been proposed by translating the Greek for \u201cof those who had him condemned\u201d (tois katadedikasmenois) differently: \u201che shall become a slave through whom he was condemned\u201d or \u201che shall become a slave for the benefit of whom he was condemned.\u201d According to the latter view, the thief either became a slave of the one from whom he stole, or he was sold into slavery with the proceeds going to the one from whom he stole. These interpretations would agree with Josephus\u2019s report elsewhere (Ant. 16.3): \u201cThe laws ordered that a thief was to pay a fourfold fine, and, if he were unable to do so, he was to be sold.\u201d
\n273 The relevant biblical verses are Exod. 21:2\u20135 and Lev. 25:39\u201341. Deuteronomy 15:12\u201316 repeats the Exodus verses but adds that the master must furnish the slave with various provisions, a requirement omitted by Josephus. Josephus also omits the law, mentioned in both Exod. 21:6 and Deut. 15:17, that if the slave decides to stay with his master after six years of service, his ear is to be pierced with an awl. Both of those verses add that in such a case, the slave is to serve forever. It is Lev. 25:40 that refers to the jubilee year as the time when the slave is set free. In putting these laws of slavery after Ant. 4.271\u201372, Josephus is following not the order of the biblical verses but the similarity of topic in the immediately preceding section. Having just told us that if one cannot pay the fine for theft, he is to be sold into slavery, Josephus now continues with laws of slavery. A similar connection is made in Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof. at Exod. 21:2, \u201cWhen he is sold as a slave for his theft, to an Israelite, he shall serve six years,\u201d which is based on the tannaitic understanding that Exod. 21:2\u20136 refers to a case where one is sold into slavery for theft: \u201cSince it says, \u2018[He must make restitution;] if he lacks the means, he shall be sold for his theft.\u2019 (Exod. 22:2), I might think that it means forever. Therefore, it says \u2018he shall serve for six years\u2019 (Exod. 21:2)\u2014he serves for six years and goes free on the seventh.\u201d \u201c \u2018Then his master shall bring him to God\u2019 (Exod. 21:6)\u2014to the judges. Rabbi said, \u2018Scripture is speaking of a case where he is sold by the court for his theft.\u2019 \u201d An exposition attributed to R. Yo\u1e25anan ben Zakkai (1st century) makes the same connection homiletically: \u201cit is the ear that is pierced because it was the ear that heard the law \u2018You shall not steal\u2019 (Exod. 20:13) and yet this man stole anyway.\u201d
\n274 This law of restitution of lost property is a paraphrase of Deut. 22:1\u20133: \u201cIf you see your fellow\u2019s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow. If your fellow does not live near you or you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your fellow claims it; then you shall give it back to him. You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do the same with his garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow loses and you find; you must not remain indifferent\u201d (Exod. 23:4 speaks of \u201cyour enemy\u2019s\u201d ox or ass). As in the Bible, Josephus divides the lost property into two parts, animate and inanimate objects, although Josephus has changed the biblical inanimate \u201cgarment\u201d to \u201cgold and silver,\u201d perhaps recalling Exod. 22:6: \u201cmoney or goods,\u201d which he had just dealt with in Ant. 4.271. Josephus adds to the biblical law the criterion of where the object is found, the notion of a public announcement of the lost item, and a reason for the law.
\ngold or silver on the road \u2026 beasts \u2026 straying in a desert place This differentiation of where the object is found, while not in the Bible, is paralleled in tannaitic literature. \u201cA spade or a garment on the road and cow grazing among seeds\u2014these are lost objects\u201d; \u201can ass going through vineyards, utensils lying in the middle of the road.\u201d The tannaim further define the place where the animal was found: \u201cAn ass or cow grazing on the road is not considered a lost object \u2026 a cow running through vineyards is a lost object.\u201d \u201cThe word \u2018straying\u2019 [in the Bible] always means outside the boundary.\u201d Josephus and the tannaim, then, both add to the biblical law the criterion of place where the object is found, differentiating between animate and inanimate objects.
\nafter diligent search for the loser A tannaitic source interprets the verse in Deuteronomy to mean that the finder must make a search for the loser.
\npublic proclamation This addition to the biblical law is also found in tannaitic halakhah: \u201cThere was a rock of [losers\u2019] claim in Jerusalem. Whoever lost something would go there and whoever found something would go there. The one would make proclamation and the other would identify the object and take it.\u201d The Mishnah many times mentions proclamation as the method of returning a lost item. One tannaitic source dates the custom of proclamation to the time of Josephus: \u201cOriginally they used to make proclamation \u2026 however, after the destruction of the temple.\u201d Josephus\u2019s description of the proclamation as indicating the place where the object was found is also paralleled in a Rabbinic source, but it is a later, amoraic, one.
\nreckoning it dishonest to profit by another\u2019s loss This extrabiblical explanation for the law is similar to the explanation Josephus provided for the prohibition of lending on interest: \u201cfor it is not just to profit from the misfortunes of one\u2019s compatriot\u201d (Ant. 4.266).
\nbut if the owner be not found forthwith This is a paraphrase of the biblical \u201cIf your fellow does not live near you\u201d (Deut. 22:2), with Josephus transforming spatial proximity to temporal proximity, its implied meaning in the Bible.
\nlet him keep them at his home This rendering by Thackeray is not the best translation of the Greek, which means \u201clet him watch over them,\u201d a translation that Feldman has accepted. Josephus does not mean to imply that the finder may keep the objects for himself. Cf. the translation of M. Hadas to 4 Macc. 2:14, and Philo, Virtues 96.
\ncalling God to witness that he has not appropriated the goods of another An extrabiblical addition, which does appear, however, in the biblical law of theft of an entrusted object at Exod. 22:7 (\u201cIf the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall depose before God that he has not laid hands on the other\u2019s property\u201d). In tannaitic tradition this verse was understood as requiring an oath in court, which is reflected in the Targums\u2019 translation of elohim as \u201cjudges\u201d rather than \u201cGod.\u201d Note also that according to the tannaim, the oath requires \u201ccalling God to witness.\u201d
\n275 Exodus 23:5 speaks of helping the beast of \u201cyour enemy,\u201d while Deut. 22:4 restricts the law to \u201cyour fellow.\u201d Josephus is nonspecific, as he is also above in the law of restitution of lost property (Ant. 4.274). Later tannaitic interpretation specified that Exod. 23:5 referred to unloading the animal\u2019s burden, and Deut. 22:4 to reloading it.
\nreckoning the distress as one\u2019s own Greek ton ponon oikeion h\u0113g\u0113smenon. Feldman and Thackeray in their respective translations have presumably taken the subject of the distress (ton ponon) to be the owner of the animal. Whiston, however, understood the subject to be the animal: \u201creckoning its pain (ton ponon) as his own.\u201d His translation would accord well with a Rabbinic understanding of the reason for the law: that one must not cause pain to animals. On the other hand, taking the owner as the subject of the pain, another translation is possible if we understand the Greek participial clause (ton ponon oikeion h\u0113g\u0113samenon) in a causal sense: \u201csince he believed that he would have labored for himself.\u201d Such a translation would also correspond with a Rabbinic (tannaitic) interpretation of the law that requires one to help the distressed owner only if one would have helped were the animal his own.
\n276. One must point out the road to those who are ignorant of it There is no biblical requirement to show the road to one who has lost his way. Josephus seems to have drawn on the same source that later served the Rabbis, since such a requirement does appear in tannaitic literature. The tannaim considered this law to fall under the category of lost objects: one must return a lost object to its owner whether that object is a possession of the owner or the owner himself. Thus, in tannaitic literature as in Josephus, showing the road is discussed with the laws regarding lost objects.
\nmisleading him Does Josephus intend this phrase to mean that \u201cneglecting to give him directions\u201d is prohibited, as implied in the first part of the sentence, or is he introducing an additional element here, intending the phrase to mean that \u201cdeliberately misleading him\u201d is prohibited also? The Palestinian Targum provide a direct parallel to the prohibition of deliberately misleading: Tg. Ps.-J. to Deut. 27:18 says \u201cCursed be the man who misleads a stranger on the road, for he is compared to a blind man.\u201d The same notion, less explicitly stated, is found in the Palestinain Targums to Lev. 19:14: \u201cBefore a stranger who is compared to a blind man do not put a stumbling block.\u201d A stranger, of course, is one who does not know the way.
\nSimilarly, let no one curse a person not present or a mute person The meaning of the first clause is that one should not revile or curse someone who is not present to hear. Leka\u1e25 \u1e6cov, a medieval midrashic anthology based on earlier sources, gives this very interpretation to the biblical \u201cdeaf\u201d in Lev. 19:14 RSV (\u201cYou shall not curse the deaf\u201d; NJPS: insult), which \u201cincludes even one [lit. \u2018an Israelite\u2019] who does not hear you; all the more so if you are in his presence\u201d (i.e., even one who is capable of hearing you but does not, because he is not in your presence; all the more so if you are in his presence). Josephus may have been aware of this exegetic expansion. But why should Josephus have replaced the biblical \u201cdeaf\u201d rather than extending its meaning, as did the Midrash? Furthermore, why did he include \u201cthe mute person\u201d? Josephus may have interpreted the biblical prohibition as hinging on the inability of the one cursed to respond, whether because he does not hear the curse or because he is incapable of responding. I think, however, another answer is more likely. The word that is translated \u201cdeaf\u201d in both the MT (h.eresh) and the LXX (k\u014dphon) can mean \u201cmute\u201d as well as \u201cdeaf,\u201d and Josephus understood it as meaning \u201cmute.\u201d In this, he may have been influenced by a semantic development in which both the Hebrew and Greek words came to mean \u201cdeaf and dumb\u201d in Josephus\u2019s time.
\n277 Josephus divides this law into three parts: (1) death is immediate, for which the killer receives the death penalty; (2) death is delayed, for which there is no punishment, (i.e., no death penalty); and (3) the victim does not die, for which monetary compensation is made. The third part is clearly derived from Exod. 21:18\u201319. The first part also may have a biblical basis, either Exod. 21:12 or Lev. 24:17, 21, or both; or possibly Josephus (or his source) deduced it from Exod. 21:18\u201319: \u201cand he does not die but has to take to his bed\u2014if he then gets up and walks outdoors upon his staff, the assailant shall go unpunished.\u201d That is, if the victim does die, then he who struck him shall not go unpunished but shall also die. The same deduction was made by the tannaim but is not as clearly enunciated until the amoraic period. The second part, however\u2014that one does not receive the death penalty if the person whom he struck remains alive several days before dying\u2014is paralleled in the Bible only regarding the killing of a slave (Exod. 21:20\u201321). Some scholars believe that these verses, which immediately follow the passage concerning the killing of a freeman, were the source for Josephus, who mistakenly or deliberately combined them in his description of the law for killing a freeman. But this view is not supported by the second part of Ant. 4.277, which contains close parallels to Exod. 21:18\u201319, the biblical treatment of the freeman. While Josephus\u2019s \u201cfor several days\u201d may or may not derive from \u201ca day or two\u201d said of the slave (it may be Josephus\u2019s own addition), it is clear that \u201cif he is carried to his home and after being ill\u201d is a paraphrase of \u201cbut has to take to his bed\u201d and \u201clet the one who struck him be free from punishment\u201d paraphrases \u201cthe assailant shall go unpunished\u201d (Exod. 21:19), both said of the freeman. Josephus\u2019s law of delayed death is not found in the biblical text but it is recorded in Rabbinic literature. According to tannaitic halakhah, the law in the case of a freeman is divided into three parts, as it is in Josephus, with delayed death not requiring the death penalty: \u201cIf one smites his fellow \u2026 and it was determined that the injured party would live, but he died his heirs receive monetary compensation,\u201d but no death penalty. This is the meaning of Josephus\u2019s \u201cIf he is carried to his home and after being ill for several days,\u201d i.e., it appeared that he would live, and not that it was clear from the outset that he would die but that he lingered on for a while. Josephus\u2019s usage of epeita with a finite verb after a participle indicates that this is his meaning, for such a construction \u201cis often used to mark an opposition between the participle and the verb, marking surprise or the like.\u201d Philo also has the same three-part law when discussing the murder of a freeman: \u201c[1] He smites the other with his clenched fist or takes up a stone and throws it.\u2026 If his opponent dies at once the striker too must die \u2026 [2] but if that other is not killed on the spot by the blow, but is laid up with sickness and after keeping his bed and receiving the proper care gets up again and goes abroad \u2026 the striker must be fined twice over, first to make good the other\u2019s enforced idleness and secondly to compensate for the cost of his cure. This payment will release him from the death penalty [3] even if the sufferer from the blow subsequently dies.\u201d In summary, Josephus, Philo, and the tannaim in discussing injuries resulting from fights (Exod. 21:18\u201319) divide the possible results into three cases. (1) Death is immediate; the penalty to the striker is death. (2) Death is delayed; the striker is not punished by death. (3) The victim does not die; the striker makes compensation.
\n288 The biblical bases for this law are Deut. 24:14\u201315 and Lev. 19:13. In Ant. 20.220, Josephus notes that laborers on public works projects in Jerusalem were immediately paid for work done. Similarly Jesus\u2019s parable about the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:8) indicates payment at the end of the day without delay.
\nthose who labor with their bodies This clause is a logical inference from the biblical \u201ca needy and destitute laborer\u201d (Deut. 24:14), that is, excluding those who lend their animals or tools for hire, which agrees with a tannaitic interpretation: \u201cThe verse says \u2018because they are poor,\u2019\u2014those who are subject to poverty and wealth, therefore excluding animals and utensils which are not subject to poverty and wealth.\u201d So too Philo: \u201cThe wages of the poor man are to be paid on the same day \u2026 because the manual worker or load carrier who toils painfully with his whole body like a beast of burden\u201d (Virt. 88).
\nlet him be hated This phrase is not found in the biblical account and may have arisen through Josephus\u2019s misreading of nose\u2019 \u201cto depend on\u201d (Deut. 24:15) as sone\u2019, \u201cto hate.\u201d The idea that one ought to hate the evildoer is found elsewhere in Josephus, in Qumran, and in the Targum to Ecclesiastes.
\nGod has given this to him in place of land and the other possessions In other words, to deny the laborer his wages is tantamount to theft, which Josephus probably deduced from Lev. 19:13: \u201cYou shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery. The wages of a laborer.\u201d The tannaitic corpus, relying also on Lev. 19:13, is explicit on this matter: \u201cHe who withholds the wages of a laborer transgresses five prohibitions: You shall not withhold the wages, you shall not commit theft.\u201d
\none ought not even to delay the payment This division of the law into two parts, total denial of wages and deferment of wages, is apparently based on Lev. 19:13 understanding the verse as containing two separate prohibitions, thus: \u201cYou shall not defraud your fellow. You shall not commit robbery\u201d [i.e., total denial]. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until morning\u201d [i.e., deferment].\u201d
\nsince God does not wish A paraphrase of the biblical \u201che will cry to the LORD against you\u201d (Deut. 24:15).<\/p>\n
The Altar across the Jordan<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
Josephus\u2019s version of Josh. 22:10\u201334 in his Jewish Antiquities (5.100\u2013114, known as The Altar across the Jordan), which tells of the controversy that breaks out when the tribes living across the Jordan set up their own altar, highlights some central motives of Josephus\u2019s work. In both the speeches of Phinehas and of the Transjordanian people, he stresses the importance of living prudently and abiding by the ancestral laws, and, conversely, the gravity of any deviation from the Law of the fathers. He enhances the ideal of kinship and unity of the Jews, and the need to avoid revolutionary movements and civil strife, such as were experienced by Josephus himself during the war against the Romans. In Josephus, Joshua is a key character in preventing civil war: he is one of the promoters of the embassy to the kinsmen, and he rejoices when there is no need of military action against them. Josephus highlights the obedience of the Jews to God\u2019s will and to his laws, as well as God\u2019s favor and providence toward his people.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Begg, C. \u201cThe Transjordanian Altar (Josh 22:10\u201334) according to Josephus (Ant. 5.100\u2013114) and Pseudo-Philo (LAB 22.1\u20138).\u201d Andrew University Seminary Studies 35, no. 1 (1997): 5\u201319.
\nSpilsbury, Paul. The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus\u2019 Paraphrase of the Bible, 150\u201353. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
100. as a memorial to posterity and a symbol of their relationship Josephus produces from the beginning the true intention of the Transjordanian tribes, in order to give his reader an immediate reference to the unity of the Jews. Josephus, moreover, omits the fact that the altar was enormous (Josh. 22:10), avoiding any hint of an alternative worship. On the other hand, according to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 22:1), the Transjordanian tribes were already offering sacrifices and had even created a priesthood for the sanctuary.
\n101. revolutionary intent Josephus has a particularly negative attitude toward uprising and revolutionary intent (Gk. ne\u014dterismos), in both political and religious contexts. He uses the term ne\u014dterismos, for instance, to depict the beginning of the revolutionary movement after he came back from Rome to Judea (Life 17), or to define a fanatic group of his time, who, pretending to be inspired by God, plotted disorders and revolutions (J.W. 2.259). Josephus maintains that, at the time of his command in Galilee, the main instigator of the mob claiming that Josephus himself was a traitor was a certain Jesus son of Sapphias, described by the historian as a man fomenting sedition and revolution (Life 134). Josephus\u2019s concern about revolt is also well understood in his audience\u2019s context: according to Plutarch (Mor. 825B), one of the key goals of a Greek politician subject to Rome is to keep the people free from all sedition (stasis) and revolution (neoterismos).
\npunish them for their deviation from their ancestral customs Whereas in the Bible the intention of the western tribes is mainly to protect themselves from God\u2019s wrath, Josephus omits any allusion to the episodes of Baal-Peor (Josh. 22:17) and Achan (22:20), where the punishment for the sin of a single man reached the entire people of Israel. On the contrary, Josephus emphasizes the need of living according to the Law and the customs of the fathers. In fact, in his farewell to the Transjordanian tribes, Joshua had stressed the necessity of worshiping the same God and living in the manner prescribed by Moses (Ant. 5.98), because of their common origin.
\n103. Joshua and Eleazar the high priest and the senate According to his typical contempt for the masses (see Ag. Ap. 2.224, Ant. 3.23, 4.36\u201337, 6.81), Josephus opposes the people rushing to judge the prudence of their leaders, who restrain them from taking up arms. In particular, whereas in the Bible (Josh. 22:13\u201314) it is Phinehas and the elders who form the embassy to the Transjordanian tribes, in Josephus the decision to restrain the people comes from Joshua, together with the high priest Eleazar himself and the council of elders. Josephus anachronistically makes use of the term gerousia (lit. \u201csenate\u201d) to indicate the elders of Joshua\u2019s time; the term, however, indicates the council of elders, in Jerusalem as in oligarchic cities such as Sparta (Ant. 13.166), in a later time.
\n104. Phinehas Whereas in the Bible (Josh. 22:15) it is the entire delegation who speaks to the Transjordanian tribes, in Josephus the speaker is the leader, according to his oligarchic ideal. On the other hand, in Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 22:2) the speakers are Joshua and the elders, while Phinehas is not mentioned.
\n105. their offense was too great for a reprimand in words Josephus stresses once again the gravity of a possible crime of apostasy, perhaps referring to his own time. According to 3 Macc. 2:33 (1st century BCE\u20131st century CE), any pious Jew would despise \u201cthose who left their ranks, judging them to be enemies of the nation and depriving them of any further part in community life and service.\u201d
\nlooking to their kinship \u2026 they might become prudent These are two key motives in Josephus\u2019s retelling of the episode. In his farewell to the Transjordanian tribes, Joshua (Ant. 5.97) insists on the topic of Jewish fraternity, saying that they were all Abraham\u2019s stock, whether living on the one or the other side of the Jordan. Moreover, according to Josephus, Joshua is fundamental in avoiding civil strife and in inviting the people to moderation, just as Josephus himself did during the war against Rome (J.W. 5.362\u2013419), trying to dissuade his fellow countrymen from pursuing the conflict.
\n107. given your experience of God\u2019s intention and your hearing the laws In his speech in Josephus, Phinehas emphasizes Jewish obedience to the Law, expressed through the element of listening (see Ant. 4.209\u201311). This is a recurrent topic in Josephus\u2019s work, especially in an apologetic context. In Against Apion (2.150, 183) in particular, Josephus states that the Jews are the most law-abiding of all nations and refrain from every action and thought that is contrary to the laws. In this way, the historian highlights one of the most positive aspects of Judaism that would raise sympathy in his readers. On the other hand, in Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 22:5) Joshua asks the Transjordanian tribes why they did not teach their children the words of God that they had listened to from the other Israelites, implying their deviation from the ancestral law.
\nfavor of God and his providential care for us One of the leitmotifs of Jewish Antiquities, as well as a Stoic designation and therefore appealing to the philosophical interest of his readers, is the concept of God\u2019s providential care (pronoia) for his people, which is found throughout Josephus\u2019s biblical account. The topic of God\u2019s care is used by Josephus to stress the particular relationship between God and his people (see also Ant. 4.212\u201313).
\n109. you are also beyond God\u2019s power \u2026 his authority and his judgment Josephus might imply the difficulties to be faced by practicing Jewish customs beyond the geographical boundaries of the land; at the same time, however, he emphasizes the impossibility of escaping God\u2019s power and authority. Pseudo-Philo, in this context (L.A.B. 22:5), has Joshua calling the LORD \u201cthe King stronger than a thousand sacrifices,\u201d emphasizing, like Josephus, God\u2019s power.
\n110. abandoning this region to sheep grazing Whereas the Bible (Josh. 2:19) speaks merely of the possibility of relocating the tribes west of the Jordan, Josephus, aiming at sketching a realistic speech, adds the suggestion of what their original territory might become, in case of relocation.
\nbe prudent and change your mind Phinehas\u2019s final appeal is to moderation and to a change of mind, as was Josephus\u2019s to the revolutionaries at the time of the Jewish war (J.W. 5.419). Conversely, in Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 22:6) Joshua directs the Transjordanian tribes to demolish the sanctuary they have built and to teach the Law to their children. They indeed go and destroy the altar, as well as fast and lament (L.A.B. 22:7).
\n111\u201312. they would not deviate \u2026 nor had they \u2026 revolutionary intent The answer of the Transjordanians is, in Josephus, a reaffirmation of the key themes underlined above, that is, the topic of kinship between the Jews, the absence of revolutionary intent by the Transjordanian tribes, and the need to think prudently and to abide by Jewish ancestral laws.
\n114. Joshua rejoiced \u2026 and offered, therefore, thanksgiving sacrifices to God Whereas the Bible (Josh. 22:33) states that the Israelites are pleased with the delegation\u2019s good news and does not mention any sacrifice, in Josephus, Joshua the moderate rejoices at the avoidance of war and offers sacrifices of thanksgiving to the LORD. Similarly, in Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 22:7), Joshua, together with the Israelites, offers 1,000 rams as atonement for the people.<\/p>\n
The Levite and His Wife<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
The Bible\u2019s tragic story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19), along with its repercussions (Judges 20\u201321), is the last episode of the book of Judges. Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities (5.136\u201349), moves the story to the beginning of his account of the Judges period, as do some in the Rabbinic tradition (see S. Olam Rab. 12; S. Eli. Rab. 11:57), to show what happens as soon as Israel begins neglecting its institutions and laws after Joshua\u2019s death. In particular, Josephus\u2014who himself experienced the war against the Romans and its consequences\u2014wants to stress his political theory regarding moral decay and civil strife and to underscore the orderliness and discipline demanded in government, as in the army. In addition, by this displacement Josephus might have been willing to connect to the rather national context of the book of Joshua the national character of the response to the Levite\u2019s story, as opposed to the separate tribal presentation in most of the book of Judges.
\nIn Josephus\u2019s account the Levite is depicted as a loving and loyal husband: he is married to the woman; he does not thrust her to the rapists, who instead seize her; he tries to console her after the rape. In this way Josephus the priest, who elsewhere looks down on the Levites as rivals, emphasizes here the romantic motif. Significantly, in Josephus the Levite is not propositioned by the Gibeahites, who instead focus their desire on the woman. Thereby, the historian avoids any allusion to homosexuality, enhances the morality of his biblical character, and stresses the romantic motif and the drama of the story.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Begg, C. \u201cThe Retelling of the Story of Judges 19 by Pseudo-Philo and Josephus: A Comparison.\u201d Estudios b\u00edblicos 58 (2000): 33\u201349.
\nFeldman, L. H. \u201cJosephus\u2019 Portrayal (Antiquities 5.136\u2013174) of the Benjaminite Affair of the Concubine and Its Repercussions (Judges 19\u201321).\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review 90 (2000): 255\u201392.
\nSpilsbury, Paul. The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus\u2019 Paraphrase of the Bible, 154\u201356. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
136. of the lower ranks In view of Josephus\u2019s usual tendency to downgrade the status of Levites in favor of priests, the word d\u0113motikos (of the lower ranks) seems to have a negative connotation. The remark likely originates from a sociopolitical interpretation of the Heb. byrkty (lit., \u201cin inner parts\u201d; Judg. 19:1), as Feldman suggests (2000, 267\u201369); by contrast, this word is translated in the Septuagint as en m\u0113rois (lit. \u201cin thighs\u201d), to be read in the metaphoric sense of \u201cthe most inside area\u201d (as in 4 Kings LXX 19:23).
\nmarried a woman The status of the relationship of the Levite and the woman is legitimate in Josephus. She is his wife, as is confirmed by the mention of the Levite\u2019s parents-in-law (Ant. 5.137), and not his concubine, as in the Bible (Heb. pylgsh). However, the Greek term used by Josephus is gynaikon, which, as well as a connotation of endearment for a wife, may describe a weak, poor, and simple woman. Both the Levite and his wife are therefore presented as low-ranking people.
\ndeeply in love \u2026 and captivated by her beauty The romantic motif of the woman\u2019s beauty and of her husband\u2019s passion is highlighted by Josephus throughout the episode. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo neither mentions the reasons for the couple\u2019s trip nor gives details on their relationship, opening the episode with the arrival of the Levite in Gibeah (L.A.B. 45:1); similarly, the talmudic Rabbis are more interested in how the Levite finds fault in the concubine than in romantic motifs (B. Git. 6b).
\n137. aloof The Hebrew Bible (Judg. 19:2) indicates that the woman either played the harlot before the Levite or, more probably, deserted her husband (wtznh). This last interpretation is found in version B of the Septuagint and in the Vulgate, whereas in version A of the Septuagint the woman is said to \u201cgrow angry with\u201d the Levite. In Josephus there is no hint of the woman\u2019s infidelity toward her husband, although she is portrayed as cold and ungrateful, not responding to the man\u2019s love and being unfavorably disposed toward him.
\nin the fourth month Whereas the Bible says the woman stays four months with her father (Judg. 19:2), implying that the Levite does not claim her before that time, in Josephus she lives four months with her husband before going back to her father. Josephus does not specify how long the Levite waits before visiting his parents-in-law to attempt a reconciliation, but we may guess from his reaction to her departure that he does not wait long.
\n138. a donkey Josephus mentions only one donkey, ridden by the wife of the gentlemanly Levite. According to Judg. 19:10, they ride on two donkeys.
\n140. he arrived at Gibeah In Josephus, as in the Bible, the crime occurs at Gibeah; according to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 45:1), the Levite wishes to stay in Gibeah, but as nobody offers him hospitality, he moves on to Nob. The author thereby justifies the later destruction of Nob (1 Sam. 22).
\n142. to his own home Josephus\u2019s reading agrees with the Septuagint (Judg. 19:18 LXX), whereas the Hebrew has \u201cto the house of the LORD.\u201d
\n143. they demanded \u2026 his woman guest Unlike the Bible (19:22), which explicitly states that the mob wants to know (i.e., abuse) the Levite; and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 45:3), who states that both the guests were required, Josephus avoids any allusion to homosexuality. It is rather the astonishing beauty of the woman that arouses the men of Gibeah\u2019s lust. Moreover, whereas the Bible\u2019s account is reminiscent of the episode of Lot and the Sodomites (Gen. 19) and the episode of Rahab and the spies in Joshua 2, and Pseudo-Philo openly draws a parallel with the Sodomites (L.A.B. 45:2), Josephus\u2014although he includes the story of Lot in his work (Ant. 1.200)\u2014does not provide any hint of homosexuality in this passage of Judges, probably to avoid raising any suspicion of that practice among the Jews. Even in Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 45:3\u20135), once the men of Gibeah seize the Levite and his concubine and drag them out, they leave the man and abuse the woman alone. A similar tendency to omit or de-emphasize homosexual implications in this episode is found in Rabbinic tradition: in the Talmud (B. Git. 6b), the 3rd-century Rabbis Abiathar and Jonathan discuss the meaning of the woman\u2019s harlotry and disagree about whether the man finds a fly in his food or a hazardous hair in her privates, whereas according to Rabbi Hisda, the concubine is simply terrorized by her husband. However, according to B. Meg. 25b, the story of the concubine can be both read and translated, and is fit for public consumption unlike some other sexually explicit biblical passages.
\n144. offending against the laws for the sake of pleasure The men of Gibeah represent what Josephus perceived as a wider decline of the Israelites as they increasingly yielded to luxury and worldly pleasure. In his introduction to the passage on the Levite and his wife (5:132\u201335), Josephus emphasizes that peace leads to luxury, followed by enslavement to pleasure. In his view, this explained why the Israelites scoffed at (\u014dlig\u014droun\u2014the same Gk. term used to describe the attitude of the men of Gibeah) the laws of their constitution (politeia).
\nthey threatened to kill him With this embellishment to Judges, Josephus dramatizes the host\u2019s desperate situation.
\n145. he offered them his own daughter According to the Bible (Judg. 19:24), both the old man\u2019s daughter and the concubine are offered, whereas in Josephus the old man limits himself to his own daughter, just as Lot had offered his virgin daughters to protect his guests (Gen. 19:8). Josephus feels compelled to state that through this action the old man thought he would avoid any infraction to the law of hospitality. As with the Levite himself, by diminishing the culpability of the host Josephus sharpens the story\u2019s moral outrage at the locals.
\n146. they snatched her away Whereas in the Bible (Judg. 19:25), the Levite seizes his concubine and hands her over to the mob, both Josephus and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 45:3) have the men of Gibeah take her by violence. In this way, the historian stresses the depravity of the wicked men and improves the Levite\u2019s morality. This removes some of the element of farce from the story by making the Levite a sympathetic character.
\n147. from grief \u2026 and in her shame \u2026 she reasoned that he especially would be irremediably hurt by these events Josephus describes the woman\u2019s feelings after the rape and, elevating the Levite\u2019s character once more, emphasizes that her husband would have been inconsolable at her fate.
\nshe died Whereas the Hebrew text (Judg. 19:28) does not make clear whether the wife is dead or alive when the Levite finds her, Josephus, as in the Greek version, states that the woman is dead. According to Pseudo-Philo, who also underscores that she is dead (L.A.B. 45:4), her suffering and death are due to her transgression toward her husband, which is defined as a sin committed together with the Amalekites (L.A.B. 45:3).
\n148. thinking his wife to be lying in a deep sleep Whereas in the Bible the Levite is ready to leave when he finds the concubine and addresses her abruptly as soon as he sees her (Judg. 19:27\u201328), in Josephus the Levite ingenuously suspects nothing serious and, in his great love for his wife and his sensitivity, intends to console her regarding the violence experienced.
\n149. to tell the causes of the woman\u2019s death In the Hebrew text (Judg. 19:29 MT), the Levite sends no verbal message along with the woman\u2019s limbs. Josephus, like the long version of some Septuagint manuscripts (Judg. 19:30 mss. AL, against ms. B, that shows the short version), inserts a verbal message of the Levite. Specifically, Josephus recalls the cause of the woman\u2019s death and the crime perpetrated by the tribe (of Benjamin, although both Josephus and the Septuagint do not mention it by name). Pseudo-Philo also inserts a verbal message (L.A.B. 45:4). Yet, he refers to the city of Nob instead of Gibeah as the place where the crime occurred: \u201cthese things were done to me in the city of Nob.\u201d<\/p>\n
Deborah<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
Judges 4 relates the story of Deborah and Barak, the Israelites\u2019 battle against the Assyrian general Sisera, and the murder of Sisera by the hand of Jael; all of chapter 5 is devoted to Deborah\u2019s song. Deborah, the most prominent woman in the Bible in the period of the Judges, is considered at length both by Pseudo-Philo and by the Rabbis, whereas Josephus, who generally downplays the role of women, here in his Jewish Antiquities (5. 201\u20139) de-emphasizes Deborah\u2019s character in numerous ways. He stresses the role of God in the Israelites\u2019 battle against Sisera; he depicts Barak as equal to Deborah as a military leader, despite his failures and his manifest lack of courage in front of the enemies; and he credits the final victory of the Israelites to Jael, in order to lessen Deborah\u2019s predominance. Moreover, unlike Pseudo-Philo, who amplifies Deborah\u2019s song with a review of the Israelite history, Josephus reduces Deborah to a prosaic figure, disregarding her role as a judge and a poetess; and finally, unlike his contemporary Pseudo-Philo and Rabbinic tradition, Josephus downgrades Deborah\u2019s piety, probably in order to avoid granting her one of the cardinal virtues. There is an undercurrent within Rabbinic tradition that seeks to undercut Deborah\u2019s character; see Legends 868, no. 77.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Studies in Josephus\u2019 Rewritten Bible, 153\u201362. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cOn Professor Marc Roncace\u2019s Portraits of Deborah and Gideon in Josephus.\u201d Journal for the Study of Judaism 32 (2001): 193\u2013220.
\nRoncace, M. \u201cJosephus\u2019 (Real) Portraits of Deborah and Gideon: A Reading of Antiquities 5.198\u2013232.\u201d Journal for the Study of Judaism 31 (2000): 247\u201374.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
201. a certain prophetess \u2026 her name means \u201cbee\u201d Josephus stresses the role of Deborah as a prophetess, a term he employs only for Deborah and Huldah (Ant. 10.59\u201360). However, he gives no mention of the key role that she played as a judge (Judg. 4:4\u20135) (probably because of his view that women could not bear witness in court), nor of the palm tree named after her. In this way, he reduces her to a prophetess such as the Cumaean Sibyl or the Pythia of Delphi in the Greco-Roman world. He also omits the fact that she was the wife of Lappidoth, as well as any other personal detail about her. On the other hand, he provides the etymology of her name. A similar treatment is given for Barak: Josephus omits the name of Barak\u2019s father and town, but supplies the etymology of Barak\u2019s name. This suggests that Josephus wants to set Deborah and Barak on the same level. In Ant. 5.210, in fact, Josephus even has them dying simultaneously.
\n202. that number would suffice, since God had \u2026 announced victory As it appears in some of Judah\u2019s speeches in the books of Maccabees and in Josephus, the strength of the Israelites is not in their number but in God\u2019s help. Josephus\u2019s addition is even more remarkable here because it goes against his usual tendency to reduce the supernatural in his historical work in favor of human action.
\n203. she became indignant By this addition Josephus stresses once again God\u2019s role and his desire to give the dignity of leadership to a man instead of a woman.
\n204. The numbers of the enemy dismayed the Israelites Josephus proffers a similar psychological insight about Joshua and his men before their victory in the north (Ant. 5:64). The Bible makes no mention of the Israelites or Barak being discouraged, however.
\n205\u20136. a great storm Both Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, as well as Rabbinic tradition, remarkably expand the biblical account of the battle against Sisera (Judg. 4:15\u201316; 5:20\u201321). Pseudo-Philo depicts a supernatural battle in which God disrupts the movements of the stars and instructs them in turn to disrupt the enemies of his people, so that the stars leave their place and burn up Sisera\u2019s army (L.A.B. 31:2). The Talmud (B. Pes. 118b) maintains that when the stars of heaven descend upon Sisera and his army, they heat up the soldiers\u2019 iron weapons, whereupon the soldiers are swept away by the brook of Kishon when they go down to the water to cool off their weapons. Moreover, both Rabbinic tradition and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 32:16) connect the victory of Sisera to the Passover night. Josephus, presents an expanded, though rational, description of the battle, omitting any supernatural element. That the Canaanites\u2019 vision is obscured by windblown rain reminds one of the description of Gamla\u2019s fall (J.W. 4.76\u201377), where the Jews are struck full in the face by such a violent miraculous tempest that they can neither keep their feet on the narrow ledges nor see the approaching enemy.
\n207. he requested to be hidden In the Bible it is Jael who invites Sisera into her tent, but in Josephus the request comes from the man, in order to avoid an improper offer by a woman. The Rabbis and Pseudo-Philo depict Jael as a beautiful woman (B. Meg. 15a; L.A.B. 31:3) and play up the erotic factor of the scene: according to the Talmud (B. Naz. 23b, B. Yev. 103a), Sisera had sexual intercourse with Jael seven times that day, whereas according to L.A.B. 31:3, Jael had scattered roses on the bed before meeting Sisera. Josephus has none of these elements despite his usual interest in romantic motives, maybe because of his attempt to build up Jael\u2019s heroic character.
\n208. Having drunk deeply According to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 31:6), Jael mixes the milk with wine and gives it to Sisera, who falls asleep after drinking. Josephus does not speak of wine but mentions Sisera\u2019s immoderate drinking, giving his reader (who would be accustomed to the classical virtue of moderation) a hint of Sisera\u2019s coming fall. According to Deborah\u2019s song (Judg. 5:25) Jael gives Sisera curdled milk. A Rabbinic tradition, on the other hand, is more interested in the romantic motif, implying that Jael gave Sisera to drink from the milk of her breast (B. Nid. 55b).
\nthrough his mouth and jaw The Masoretic Text (Judg. 4:21), some Septuagint manuscripts, and Aquila imply that the tent peg is driven through Sisera\u2019s temple; Josephus and Theodotion substitute \u201cjaw\u201d for \u201ctemple.\u201d
\n209. credit of a woman Although Josephus notes that the victory occurred according to Deborah\u2019s words, he ascribes it to Jael in order to downgrade Deborah\u2019s role. Even if he does not intensify her character and beauty as do the Rabbis, Josephus stresses Jael\u2019s key role in the final achievement.
\nhe killed Jabin \u2026 razed the city \u2026 functioned as general \u2026 for 40 years Josephus builds up Barak\u2019s role, having him\u2014and not the Israelites\u2014kill the king. He adds that the city of Hazor was completely destroyed and attributes the period of time that the Bible (Judg. 5:31) simply depicts as a time of peace to Barak\u2019s leadership. In this he parallels Heb. 11:32, where Barak\u2014and not Deborah\u2014is mentioned as judge after Gideon.<\/p>\n
Jephthah\u2019s Vow<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
According to the biblical account, before fighting the Ammonites, Jephthah vows that if the LORD delivers the enemies into his hands, he will offer to him as a burnt offering whatsoever first comes out of his house upon his return (Judg. 11:30\u201331). But when the man comes home, he finds his daughter coming to greet him (v. 34). In his Jewish Antiquities (5.263\u201365), Josephus omits the biblical dialogue between Jephthah and his daughter, focusing on Jephthah\u2019s vow and its moral aspect rather than on his daughter\u2019s drama. It is Jephthah\u2019s tragedy and not his daughter\u2019s, in contrast to the way the story appears in Josephus\u2019s contemporary Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 40.1\u20138). Yet, in both Pseudo-Philo\u2019s and Josephus\u2019s accounts, the daughter is depicted as an obedient child, ready to accept her destiny\u2014especially in view of the freedom gained by the people\u2014and is in this respect very similar to Isaac. The historian\u2019s treatment of Jephthah is, however, more complex. Despite stressing where possible Jephthah\u2019s virtues\u2014such as his concern for the people, his speed in acting (Ant. 5:261), his leadership (258\u201360), and his moderation (268), as well as omitting the fact that he was the son of a harlot (259)\u2014Josephus diminishes in this passage Jephthah\u2019s association with God. Most notably, he openly blames Jephthah for making an irrational vow, as do the Rabbis, emphasizing that it was neither sanctioned by the Law nor pleasing to God.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Alexiou, M., and P. Dronke. \u201cThe Lament of Jephthah\u2019s Daughter: Themes, Traditions, Originality.\u201d Studi Medievali 12 (1971): 819\u201363.
\nBerman, J. A. \u201cMedieval Monasticism and the Evolution of Jewish Interpretation of the Story of Jephthah\u2019s Daughter.\u201d Jewish Quarterly Review 95, no. 2 (2005): 228\u201356.
\nFeldman, L. H. Studies in Josephus\u2019 Rewritten Bible, 175\u201392. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
\nKramer, P. Silverman. \u201cJephthah\u2019s Daughter: A Thematic Approach to the Narrative as Seen in Selected Rabbinic Exegesis and in Artwork.\u201d In Judges: A Feminist Companion to the Bible, edited by Athalya Brenner, 67\u201392. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
\nValler, S. \u201cThe Story of Jephthah\u2019s Daughter in the Midrash.\u201d In Judges: A Feminist Companion to the Bible, edited by Athalya Brenner, 48\u201366. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
263. He dismissed them Josephus leaves out the Bible\u2019s assertion that the spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah (Judg. 11:29); this omission serves to lessen Jephthah\u2019s association with God. Similarly, in his vow to the LORD, Jephthah does not ask God to give the Ammonites into his hands, as in the biblical version (11:30), but merely to let him return home unscathed. By diminishing Jephthah\u2019s piety, Josephus prepares the reader for the problematic issue of the vow.
\nWhatever would first come The Hebrew text (Judg. 11:31) seems to imply a person; so does the Septuagint, which uses the masculine gender. Josephus, most remarkably and very deliberately, uses the neuter gender. In this way, he indicates that Jephthah\u2019s original intention was not to sacrifice a human being\u2014which would be a foolish vow\u2014but merely to make an animal offering. Yet the vow was inconsiderate, as the author does not fail to emphasize in his final remark on the episode.
\nSlavery \u2026 for eighteen years In his attempt to stress the virtues of biblical heroes, Josephus emphasizes Jephthah\u2019s military achievements. This extrabiblical comment on the deliverance of his countrymen from a long slavery accentuates the contrast between Jephthah\u2019s glorious deeds and the calamity that is about to befall him.
\n264. he underwent a misfortune The verb used here is peripiptei (fall into), which is cognate to the noun peripeteia (reversal). In Aristotle\u2019s analysis of Greek tragedy (Poet. 11.1452A22\u201330), peripeteia indicates a sudden reversal in the plot. The use of peripiptei gives us a hint of Josephus\u2019s attempt to depict Jephthah\u2019s story as a Greek tragedy.
\nhis only child Josephus draws a parallel, as does Pseudo-Philo, between Jephthah\u2019s daughter and Isaac, both of whom are to be sacrificed by their fathers, despite being only children (Ant. 1.225; 5.266; L.A.B. 40.2). For both, Josephus uses the term monogenes (only child), drawing on the MT (Gen. 22:2) for Isaac, and on the Septuagint\u2019s use of monogenes (Judg. 11:34) for Jephthah\u2019s daughter.
\nLamenting the magnitude of his suffering, he blamed his daughter In the Bible (Judg. 11:35), Jephthah rends his clothes, whereas in Josephus he wails aloud as a sign of distress. Moreover, in an extrabiblical remark, he represents Jephthah as reproaching his daughter for her solicitude in greeting him, as if she was the cause of his inconsiderate vote.
\n265. Not \u2026 against her will Like Isaac (Ant. 1.232) and Saul\u2019s son Jonathan (Ant. 6.127), Jephthah\u2019s daughter is ready to face her destiny. However, whereas Isaac and Jonathan give long speeches in Josephus showing their joy over the sacrifice, Jephthah\u2019s daughter is simply said to accept her death without displeasure. Josephus is here in contrast with Pseudo-Philo, who has Seila\u2014Jephthah\u2019s daughter, who is anonymous in the Bible as well as in Josephus\u2014boldly rejoicing at the thought of her heroic, exemplary death, and encouraging her father to accomplish his vow (\u201cwho is there who would be sad to die, seeing the people freed?\u201d; L.A.B. 40.2).
\nher youth Despite declaring (Ant. 5.264) that the daughter is a virgin, Josephus does not emphasize that here, talking of her youth rather than her virginity. He also does not mention the annual festival bewailing the sacrifice of Jephthah\u2019s daughter (Judg. 11:40), although the girl is said to be awarded two months by her father to bewail her youth with her fellow citizens. By avoiding the theme of virginity here and omitting the annual ritual, Josephus is presumably eager to avoid any comparison with pagan virgins such as the Vestals in Rome, as well as with pagan rituals such as the laments for Persephone at Eleusis in Greece.
\n266. he sacrificed the child as a holocaust Josephus, like the talmudic Rabbis (B. Ta\u2019an. 4a), is clear in stating that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering. In this, he is far from the interpretation attested by several medieval Jewish commentators, according to which she was not sacrificed but merely dedicated to God.
\nneither lawful nor pleasing to God Josephus emphasizes in a personal aside that Jephthah\u2019s sacrifice is against the Law\u2014being in fact against the levitical law that prescribes a monetary payment (Lev. 27:1\u20138) when a person vows the value of a person\u2014and stresses that such a sacrifice is not pleasing to God, as is shown by Jer. 19:4\u20135. His contemporary Pseudo-Philo takes a similar position in saying that God is furious with Jephthah for making a thoughtless, even an insolent, vow (L.A.B. 39:11); however, Pseudo-Philo parts company with Josephus by having God say that the death of Jephthah\u2019s daughter will always be precious to him (L.A.B. 40:4).
\nhe did not carefully weigh through reason Josephus openly blames Jephthah for his lack of reasoning and consequent lack of wisdom in making the vow. In his outspoken criticism, Josephus agrees with the Rabbis\u2014who class Jephthah with the fools who do not distinguish between vows, and who have God asking what Jephthah would have done had a camel or a donkey or a dog come forth\u2014as well as with Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 39:11), where similarly God asks whether Jephthah would offer God a dog, had a dog first greeted him. But Josephus does not point out, as do the Rabbis, what Jephthah could have done to be absolved of fulfilling his vow: namely, pay a sum into the Temple treasury.<\/p>\n
The Birth of Samson<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
Josephus presents the announcement of Samson\u2019s birth (Judges 13) as a romantic story, in his Jewish Antiquities (5.276\u201385), enriching his account with novelistic motifs such as Manoah\u2019s mad passion for his wife, his immoderate jealousy and irrational suspicion toward her, the astonishing beauty of the woman, and the physical attractiveness of the angel of God. Unlike the Rabbis, who criticize Manoah for his ignorance and fear, Josephus, like Pseudo-Philo, highlights Manoah\u2019s status and role. Manoah\u2019s wife also plays a key role, especially for the angel\u2019s second appearance. Samson is presented as a typical classical hero, who is wellborn, moderate in his diet, and extraordinarily strong; he is not unjust; and\u2014contrary to the biblical account (Judg. 13:5)\u2014he is never labeled a nazir. The human side of Samson is stressed in Josephus: although the historian frequently mentions God in this passage, and says that Samson will prophesy, he leaves the role of God\u2019s spirit on Samson\u2019s life and exploits, as well as Samson\u2019s prayer before bringing down the temple upon the Philistines, aside.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus\u2019s Intepretation of the Bible, 461\u201389. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
276. outstanding among the elite \u2026 and acknowledged to be the first Whereas the Bible mentions merely the place of Manoah\u2019s origin (Zorah in the territory of Dan), Josephus builds up his status, as usual in his depiction of wellborn biblical heroes and their ancestry. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo enumerates Manoah\u2019s ancestors for 10 generations back to Dan, son of Jacob (L.A.B. 42:1). On the other hand, although Rabbinic tradition refers to Manoah as pious (Num. Rab. 10:5), most of the Rabbis (e.g., Num. Rab. 10:5; B. Ber. 61a; B. Er. 18b) define him as one of the Am ha-Aretz (lit., \u201cpeople of the land\u201d; here, \u201can ignorant boor\u201d) because, according to Scripture (Judg. 13:11), he walked behind his wife.
\nwas notable for her beauty Josephus highlights the beauty of Manoah\u2019s wife, both to add a romantic element to his account and to support the image of Samson as physically attractive. Josephus also emphasizes the theme of physical beauty in describing the angel of God, whom he depicts as a handsome and tall youth (Ant. 5.277). Rabbinic tradition sheds a different light on Manoah\u2019s wife: rather than her beauty, it is her status that the Rabbis underscore, saying that she came from the tribe of Judah, which was known for valor (Gen. Rab. 98:13; Num. Rab. 10:5). According to the Midrash (Num. Rab. 10:5), moreover, she was a righteous person\u2014probably more so than her husband, since the angel came to her and not to him.
\nNot having children \u2026 he kept begging God According to Judges 13:2, Manoah\u2019s wife was barren. Pseudo-Philo focuses on the infertility and stresses that the couple had daily quarrels, blaming each other for their inability to have children (L.A.B. 42:1). According to the Rabbis, the angel speaks first with the woman because she is the barren one (Num. Rab. 10:5; Lev. Rab. 9). Josephus, on the other hand, avoids any finger-pointing over infertility and directs attention to Manoah, who is the one concerned with their childlessness and the one who addresses the prayer to the LORD. In this way, the historian emphasizes the male character and his piety. Judges does not mention any prayer, whereas in Pseudo-Philo it is the woman who asks God to let her know whether she or her husband is responsible for the lack of offspring (L.A.B. 42:2). Unlike the biblical text, Josephus provides a setting for the scene: since Judg. 13:9 has the woman staying in the field, for the angel\u2019s first visit, Josephus talks of a plain outside the city (on the motif of the city, see 280 below); the reference to the constant visit by the couple might originate from a similar statement in 1 Sam. 1:3, where Elkanah is said to go to Shiloh every year.
\n277. He was madly in love and \u2026 immoderately jealous Josephus makes his narration more captivating by inserting colorful details on Manoah\u2019s mad passion for his wife and his irrational jealousy, as he does with other biblical episodes such as the one on the Levite and his wife (Ant. 5.136\u201337). Here, he plays with the Gk. words man\u014dch\u0113s and mani\u014dd\u0113s, respectively the Gk. spellings for \u201cManoah\u201d and \u201cmad.\u201d
\na specter, an angel of God, similar to a handsome and tall youth Judg. 13:3 and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 42:2) speak simply of an angel of the LORD: Josephus defines him as an apparition (phantasma)\u2014which is the same word he uses for the man fighting with Jacob (Ant. 1.331; see Gen. 32:25\u201331) and for the young man who appears to Gideon (Ant. 5.213; see Judg. 6:12)\u2014and possibly also as an angel (aggelos), as in the above-mentioned episode of Jacob (Ant. 1.332\u201333). Moreover, whereas the Bible speaks of the angel\u2019s terrible or awe-inspiring countenance (Judg. 13:6 epiphan\u0113s LXX Codex Alexandrinus (A); phoberon LXX Codex Vaticanus (B); Heb. nora\u2019), Josephus emphasizes the angel\u2019s beauty (kalos) in accordance with his tendency to enhance romantic elements. A similar emphasis on celestial beauty is found in 2 Macc. 3:26.
\nGod\u2019s providence Although Josephus exalts Samson\u2019s deeds by limiting God\u2019s part in his exploits in general (e.g., Judg. 13:25; 14:6; 15:14), in this section on the announcement of Samson\u2019s birth he emphasizes God\u2019s role. Only through God\u2019s providential care (pronoia) will the child be born, and only through God will Samson defeat the Philistines; by God\u2019s command Samson must abstain from drink, and at God\u2019s behest the angel comes to the woman (Ant. 5.278). Finally, through God\u2019s grace (charis), the angel comes again (280). Pseudo-Philo inserts a similar theological embellishment, adding in angel\u2019s words that the LORD has heard the woman\u2019s voice (L.A.B. 42:3).
\nhandsome and famous for his strength Josephus adds these elements to the angel\u2019s announcement in Judg. 13:3. Both the announcer and the recipient are therefore physically attractive. Josephus particularly stresses Samson\u2019s strength, which is a key motif in his portrait of this biblical character, as shown by Josephus\u2019s reference to the meaning of Samson\u2019s name (Ant. 5.285).
\n278. not to cut his hair \u2026 to abstain from all other drink Whereas in the biblical text the angel directs the commands to the woman, who is not allowed to drink wine and strong drinks nor to eat unclean food (Judg. 13:4), in Josephus\u2014as well as in Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 42:3)\u2014the prescriptions are intended for Samson. Josephus leaves aside any hint of unclean food, likely to avoid an issue regarded as problematic by Gentiles in his day, and omits the reference to the figure of the nazir that Josephus has explained earlier on in his narrative, and that would introduce a religious element out of context in this mainly romantic plot.
\n279. the woman reported \u2026 the young man\u2019s beauty and height, so that her husband \u2026 conceived the suspicion Again Josephus emphasizes the romantic motifs, highlighting not only the angel\u2019s beauty, but also Manoah\u2019s jealousy, aroused by his wife\u2019s outspoken appreciation of the angel\u2019s appearance. In the Bible, Manoah seems to believe his wife and simply begs the LORD that the angel might visit again to instruct him about the child (Judg. 13:8), whereas Josephus plays on the notion of suspicion aroused by his jealousy. Both the Midrash (Num. Rab. 10:5; Lev. Rab. 9:9) and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 42:1\u20134) depict the tension between Manoah and his wife mostly in terms of a quarrel about which one is infertile, but Pseudo-Philo claims that Manoah does not believe his wife and is sad that he is not worthy to receive God\u2019s signs and wonders nor to see his emissary (L.A.B. 42:5).
\n280. The woman \u2026 kept begging God Judg. 13:8 and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 42:5) state that Manoah makes this prayer, but Josephus, continuing his more romantic tone, has the woman plead for the angel\u2019s return to ease her husband\u2019s unreasonable distress. Pseudo-Philo adds the twist that the angel\u2019s second appearance to the woman occurs at the very moment Manoah is praying (L.A.B. 42:6).
\nin the suburbs \u2026 she was without her husband Whereas the biblical author sets the second visit of the angel \u201cin the field\u201d (Judg. 13:9b), Josephus sets the second visit \u201cin the suburbs\u201d\u2014apparently in the same locale described at the beginning of the episode, that is, \u201cin the outskirts of the city, where there was a great plain\u201d (Ant. 5.276). Note that Josephus\u2019s choice of word evokes the urban setting\u2014and the wisdom associated with it in antiquity\u2014as opposed to the rural context. Unlike the Rabbis (Num. Rab. 10:5), who ask themselves why the angel appears again to the woman alone, and answer that it is in order to render meaningful his first visit to her, Josephus is more interested in stressing the theme of Manoah\u2019s suspicion.
\nshe asked him to remain \u2026 and, upon his assent, she sought Manoah In the Bible the woman runs immediately after her husband without even asking the angel (Judg. 13:10), whereas in Josephus she does so only after being assured that the visitor will not depart before her husband\u2019s arrival. While the Rabbis see her eagerness to inform her husband as an indication of the way righteous people act (Num. Rab. 10:5), Josephus reduces her zeal in the biblical version to merely \u201cseeking\u201d her husband. Pseudo-Philo, on the contrary, has the angel directing the woman to bring her husband (L.A.B. 42:6).
\n281. the husband did not cease from his suspicion In Josephus\u2019s dramatic plot, Manoah suspects that the angel has disclosed secrets to his wife, and his distrust intensifies when the angel refuses to repeat his revelation. By contrast, in the biblical account, Manoah simply asks the angel to identify himself and to explain the boy\u2019s manner of life; and the angel, on his part, repeats his announcement (Judg. 13:11\u201312). In the Rabbinic tradition, Manoah\u2019s distrust and subsequent request to hear the angel\u2019s words for himself are motivated by halakhah, which holds that women are not trustworthy in their testimony because they add and omit words (Num. Rab. 10:5).
\noffer him thanks and a gift Whereas in the Bible, Manoah asks the angel\u2019s name so that he may give him honor when his words come to pass (Judg. 13:17), in Josephus as in the Midrash (Num. Rab. 10:5) and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 42:8), \u201chonor\u201d is interpreted as \u201cgift.\u201d
\n282. no need of anything Here, the angel is responding to Manoah\u2019s reference to a future gift, whereas in Judges (13:18), the angel\u2019s refusal is about telling his name, which is unknowable. Pseudo-Philo, who gives God\u2019 s messenger the name Fadahel, has the angel explicitly refuse to enter Manoah\u2019s house, eat of his bread, or\u2014as in Josephus\u2014receive his presents (L.A.B. 42:10).
\nhe was persuaded \u2026 to stay so that \u2026 hospitality might be brought to him In the Bible, the angel responds to Manoah\u2019s offer by inviting him to burn a burnt offering to the LORD (Judg. 13:16), and in Pseudo-Philo, Manoah builds an altar on the rock (L.A.B. 42:9). But Josephus possibly intends to avoid the disputed issue of a non-priest performing a sacrifice: Philo, Spec. Laws 2.27, 145\u201346 and QE 1.10 insist that except for the paschal lamb, slaughtering is to be done by priests, whereas the Talmud (B. Ber 31 b) remarks that when Samuel saw Eli looking for a priest to kill the animal, he said: \u201cWhy do you go looking for a priest to kill it? The shechitah may be performed by a laymen!\u201d; in Ant. 3.226, while dealing with the description of the burnt offering, Josephus is vague\u2014likely on purpose\u2014about whether the slaughtering is performed by the priests or by the people, whereas the priests are surely drenched with the blood of the altar. In this passage on Manoah the historian prefers to stress the motif of hospitality, a virtue that was highly valued in the cultural and religious contexts of Josephus\u2019s world.
\n283. Manoah directed his wife to roast it \u2026 [the angel] ordered them to set out the loaves Josephus\u2014unlike the Bible (Judg. 13:19) and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 42:9), who have Manoah alone performing the burnt offering\u2014assigns Manoah\u2019s wife a role in preparing the foodstuffs, probably to draw a parallel with the episode of Abraham visited by three angels, where the patriarch directs Sarah to make cakes (Gen. 18:3). Moreover, in Josephus the angel himself carries out part of the preparation, bringing him closer to the human level.
\n284. with his staff he touched the meat Like Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 42:9), Josephus is probably drawing on the episode in Judges where an angel touches the tip of his staff to the meat prepared by Gideon (Judg. 6:21).
\nascended to heaven \u2026 as on a chariot Whereas in the Bible the angel ascends to heaven in the flame (Judg. 13:20), in Josephus he does so through the smoke\u2014which may serve to lessen somewhat the sense of the miraculous, as God\u2019s presence is frequently connected with fire in the Bible. The parallel to a chariot might be a reference to Elijah\u2019s ascension as described in the Bible (2 Kings 2:11), but note that Josephus leaves the ascension out of his account of Elijah\u2019s last days (Ant. 9.28). Moreover, although the Bible describes Manoah and his wife falling on their faces in response to the divine phenomenon, Josephus omits any such image, probably as a further way to diminish the element of the miraculous (Judg. 13:20). In Ant., Josephus does not neglect the account of miracles and supernatural manifestations, but often presents them in a more rational way (e.g., in 3.8, the bitter water at Mara becomes sweet thanks to incessant blows of the Israelites that purified the well) and often adds the remark \u201ceach one may make his judgment as he likes\u201d (e.g., 1.108; 2.348 on the passage of the Red Sea; 3.81 on the coming of God at Mount Sinai; and 9.214, Jonah\u2019s salvation through a whale) according to the requirements of the best ancient historiography (see Quomodo historia conscribenda sit 60).
\nfearing that something threatening would happen Here, Josephus softens Manoah\u2019s fear; in the biblical version (Judg. 13:22), Manoah is convinced he and his wife will die as a result of seeing God. Similarly, according to Pseudo-Philo, both husband and wife, and not Manoah alone, think they will die (L.A.B. 42:10). The Rabbis, in their efforts to connect later biblical figures with the patriarchs, contrast Manoah\u2019s fear to the bravery of Hagar, who was not afraid despite seeing five angels in a row (Gen. Rab. 45).
\n285. a name that means \u201cstrong\u201d Although the Bible provides no explanation of Samson\u2019s name, Josephus interprets it as \u201cstrong.\u201d The name actually derives from the Heb. word for \u201csun\u201d (shemesh). Like the Rabbis, Josephus may have connected Samson\u2019s name with his exploits: in particular, the Talmud declares that just as God is described as a sun and a shield (Ps. 84:12), so Samson shielded Israel in his generation (B. Sot. 10a). On the other hand, Pseudo-Philo interprets Samson\u2019s name as \u201csanctified,\u201d probably alluding to his status as a nazir and possibly connecting the name with Heb. shimesh, meaning \u201cto minister, to serve,\u201d or with shemen, the root of \u201coil,\u201d because of his being anointed (L.A.B. 42:3).
\nThe child grew quickly and \u2026 would prophesy Like every respectable hero, as it is for Moses in Josephus\u2019s account (Ant. 2.230), Samson is said to grow quickly to manhood. The designation of Samson as a prophet, however, is unique in Jewish tradition, although the Talmud counts physical strength, which was Samson\u2019s main characteristic, among the four typical features of the prophet (B. Ned. 38a). Josephus\u2019s allusion to Samson\u2019s future ability to prophesy might also stem from Samson\u2019s dedication beginning not at birth but at conception, as in the case of other prophets (see Isa. 49:1, 5; Jer. 1:5). Josephus might draw a parallel with the character of Samuel: although described as a nazir, Samuel is not termed as such, but he is often labeled as a prophet (e.g. Ant. 6.31, 66, 77, 83, 86, 141, 143).
\nprudence of his manner of life At the outset of Josephus\u2019s narrative, Samson is depicted as having temperance, one of the key virtues of a hero (Gk. s\u014dphrosyn\u0113). With this remark, Josephus stresses one of the traits for which the Jews were praised in antiquity, that of moderation in their manner of life (Gk. diaita). Aristotle is said to have admired a Jew he met precisely for this quality (Ag. Ap. 1.182). But Samson himself has not been universally perceived as temperate. The Rabbis criticize him for his lack of moderation with Philistine women, which caused the loss of his eyes. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo contains a direct speech by God that stresses the fact that Samson has been led astray through his eyes (seductus est per oculos suos) and emphasizes that his bad desires led him to his end (L.A.B. 43:5).
\nhair grow The Bible does not mention Samson\u2019s hair at this point (Judg. 13:24\u201325). Josephus\u2019s reference is probably due to the central role played by the hero\u2019s hair in the story. Here again, however, Josephus makes no allusion to the institution of the nazir, which would be out of context in the narrative, and omits the biblical reference to the LORD\u2019s blessings (v. 24) as well as to the role played by the spirit of the LORD in Samson\u2019s life (v. 25), in order to focus on the hero rather than on God.<\/p>\n
The Marriage of Ruth and Boaz<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
In Jewish Antiquities (5.328\u201337), Josephus sets the story of Ruth\u2014as does the Septuagint\u2014after the stories of the Judges. He presents a much-condensed version of it, reflecting his misogynistic attitude. Unlike the Rabbis, who say that Ruth was so beautiful that no man could look at her without falling passionately in love, and that she sprang from such outstanding ancestors as the king of Moab himself, Josephus, wherever possible, downgrades her. He de-emphasizes her virtues, in contrast to his usual attitude toward the biblical heroes, playing down her piety in leaving her country and her gods to follow her mother-in-law and the God of Israel. In this passage, which corresponds to Ruth 3:1\u20134:22, Josephus is careful to avoid sexual implications, to stress the morality of his characters, to update the legal institutions of the Bible according to his own interpretation, and to diminish God\u2019s role in the story.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, L. H. Studies in Josephus\u2019 Rewritten Bible, 193\u2013202. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cReflections on John Levison\u2019s Josephus\u2019s Version of Ruth.\u201d JSP 8 (1991): 45\u201352.
\nLevison, J. R. \u201cJosephus\u2019 Version of Ruth.\u201d JSP 8 (1991): 31\u201341.
\nSterling, G. \u201cThe Invisible Presence: Josephus\u2019 Retelling of Ruth.\u201d In Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, edited by S. Mason, 104\u201371. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1998.
\nBrenner, A., ed. A Feminist Companion to Ruth. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
328. Naomi \u2026 sent the girl to sleep at his feet Josephus adds the explanation, according to his tendency, that Naomi\u2019s plan was meant to gain Boaz\u2019s graciousness. In this way he stresses Boaz\u2019s piety (see also Ant. 5.327, 332). But he omits Naomi\u2019s instructions to Ruth on washing and anointing herself, in contrast with his pattern of elaborating romantic motives. He merely writes that Ruth was sent to sleep at Boaz\u2019s feet, avoiding the ambiguity of the biblical \u201cuncovering of the feet.\u201d
\ngirl \u2026 young woman The terms used by Josephus are pais and kor\u0113, indicating a young marriageable woman. Yet, according to a Rabbinic tradition (Ruth Rab. 3:10), Ruth was 40 at the time of her second marriage and Boaz was 80. Josephus entirely omits Ruth\u2019s firm decision to follow her mother-in-law and to convert to Judaism (Ruth 1:16), stating merely that Ruth could not be persuaded to remain in Moab (Ant. 5.322). The Rabbis\u2014who emphasize Ruth\u2019s readiness to follow Jewish customs (Ruth Rab. 1:16\u201317; Ruth Zutah 49) and, view her as the prototype of a convert (B. Yeb. 47b), deduce from Ruth the method by which a candidate for conversion should be interrogated. But Josephus avoids in this passage any reference to conversion to Judaism and especially to Jewish proselytism, possibly because both were a delicate subject for his audience, as many non-Jewish sources seem to imply.
\n329. regarding it as a holy obligation \u2026 directed This is one of the few cases where Josephus underscores Ruth\u2019s virtues, namely her piety toward her mother-in-law.
\na deep sleep Josephus omits the fact that Boaz had eaten and drunk before falling asleep (Ruth 3:7), saving thereby the reputation of his character. The same omission is registered by some Septuagint manuscripts.
\n330. he kept silent \u2026 he woke her up Whereas the Bible has Ruth and Boaz speaking in the middle of the night (Ruth 3:9\u201313), in Josephus, Boaz talks to Ruth only at daybreak. In this way, the historian avoids any suspicion that sexual relations occurred during the night. Moreover, in Josephus, Ruth merely identifies herself and asks Boaz for pardon in the night scene, stressing the modesty of the biblical character.
\nFor in these matters \u2026 nothing had happened Josephus is personally concerned about denigrating himself and his people, in biblical times as well as in his own lifetime.
\n331. But now \u2026 according to the law Josephus reduces the direct speeches of Ruth and Boaz to this unique statement by Boaz. He omits Boaz\u2019s praise of Ruth and highlights Boaz\u2019s reverence for the Law. Moreover, in speaking of a \u201ccloser relative\u201d rather than a \u201credeemer,\u201d Josephus avoids any allusion to the biblical figure of the goel, or redeemer (see Lev. 25:47\u201349; Ruth 2:20), thereby providing a more modern interpretation of the episode.
\n332. He went down \u2026 toward midday and assembled the elders Josephus adds the temporal mark, both setting a time for his historical exposition and stressing Boaz\u2019s diligence in putting his promise into effect. Moreover, Josephus changes the old institution of the elders of the city into the modern city council (gerousia). A similar anachronism is found in the Targum (Tg. Ruth 4:1), which refers in this context to the Sanhedrin. Josephus also uses the term gerousia to define the council of elders in his version of the law on levirate marriage (Ant. 4.254\u201356).
\nHaving summoned Ruth Josephus has Ruth be present at the gate so that she can accomplish the actions required by the law of levirate marriage.
\n334. he had a wife and children Josephus, like the the authors of Targum Ruth 4:6, explains the redeemer\u2019s refusal to marry Ruth. Similarly, the Rabbis (Sifre Deut. 249, B. Yeb. 69a, Ruth Rab. 4:1\u20132:5) say that the kinsman declined to take Ruth out of ignorance, not knowing that the prohibition of marrying Moabites referred in the Law only to males.
\n335. in accordance with the law Josephus modifies the unclear custom described by Ruth 4:7\u20138, drawing on his own retelling of the law on levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5\u201310; Ant. 4.254\u201356), according to which the widow is required to remove the sandal of the man who refuses to marry her and to spit in his face. Moreover, in his interpretation of the law on levirate marriage Josephus includes the law on redemption of property (Deut. 28:23\u201355), stating that the offspring of the new marriage will be the heir. For the case of Ruth and Boaz, which includes both redemption of property and the marriage of the widow, Josephus can therefore use his own interpretation of Deuteronomy.
\na year later In addition to giving a temporal marker useful for an historical work, the amplification stresses once more that no premarital relations occurred between Boaz and Ruth. A Rabbinic tradition says that in fact Boaz died on his wedding night, following the single act of intercourse that led to the conception of Obed (Yalqut Shimoni on Ruth 4:13).
\n337. It was necessary for me \u2026 to show the power of God Josephus feels compelled to explain why he included Ruth\u2019s story, which is not directly connected to the military matters of Judges. He claims that the story of Ruth shows how easily God can promote even ordinary people. The fact that the power of God can create turnabouts is a common theme in Josephus, as is apparent, for instance, in the change of fortune of Agrippas in Ant. 18.239. However, according to his tendency to present the Bible as history rather than as theology, the historian does not mention God until the end of Ruth\u2019s episode. Note also that although Josephus shortens the complete genealogy of the generations from Boaz to David provided by the Bible, he also adds that David bequeathed his dominion to his posterity for 21 generations, stressing the success of the king. Thus, despite the close relationship between David and the messiah (see, e.g., Matt. 1:1\u20137; Luke 3:23\u201338; Romans 1:3), and in spite of the political implications of Jewish messianism in Josephus\u2019s days, as well as those of Josephus\u2019s own descent from the Hasmonean rather than the Davidic kings\u2014all factors that might have led Josephus to omit any allusion to David\u2014the historian includes Ruth precisely because of her connection with David, while omitting any direct connection between David and the messiah.<\/p>\n
Massacre at Nob<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
Josephus, as a priest himself from the first day-course of the 24 clans of priests, is particularly interested in the episode of the extermination of the priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22:11\u201320). In his account of the event in Jewish Antiquities (6.255\u201361), he attaches a long reflection in which he states that Saul perpetrates a cruel crime by slaughtering a whole family of high priestly rank. Saul, who is generally praised by the historian, here exemplifies the effects of power on the character of people, who change all their good qualities into audacity, recklessness, and contempt for the human and divine realms. On the other hand, Josephus\u2019s version is careful in presenting the high priest Ahimelech as honest, frank, and endowed with humanity. Finally, to explain how God could have permitted the massacre of an innocent priest and his family, Josephus paints the massacre at Nob as a consequence of the sin of Eli\u2019s sons.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Begg, C. \u201cThe Massacre of the Priests of Nob in Josephus and Pseudo-Philo.\u201d EstBib 55 (1997): 171\u201398.
\nFeldman, L. H. \u201cJosephus\u2019 Version of the Extermination of the Priests of Nob (1 Sam. 21:1\u201311; 22:9\u201323). In For Uriel: Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport, edited by M. Mor et al., 9\u201321. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2005.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
255. high priest According to the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam. 21:2), Ahimelech\u2014who is called Abimelech in Josephus and in the Septuagint\u2014is simply a priest, whereas Josephus enhances his status to that of high priest. Similarly, the Rabbis state that the 85 priests of Nob were worthy to be high priests (J. Sanh. 10:29a; Tg. 1 Sam. 22:18; Tanh. 3:45). For an earlier example of how Josephus differs from the Bible on priestly matters, note that whereas in the Bible Ahimelech gives David the sacred showbread (1 Sam. 21:5\u20137), Josephus omits this detail, stating merely that David requests and obtains provisions from Ahimelech (Ant. 6.243). In this way, Josephus avoids having to justify why David, as a nonpriest, is allowed to eat the sacred food, which was the prerogative of the priests alone. But Josephus\u2019s personal concern about priestly prerogatives contrasts here with the Talmud (B. Men. 95b\u201396a) and the New Testament (Matt. 12:3\u20134; Mark 2:23\u201328; Luke 6:1\u20135), where nonpriests are permitted to partake of the showbread in case of extreme need, to preserve one\u2019s life.
\n256\u201358. The high priest did not deny Whereas in the Bible, Ahimelech starts with a defense of David\u2019s loyalty to Saul (1 Sam. 22:14\u201315), Josephus stresses Ahimelech\u2019s honesty by having him take responsibility, speak frankly, and state positively that he has given oracles to David before. Moreover, Josephus says explicitly that the high priest is motivated in his action by humanity (Ant. 6.258), one of the key virtues of Josephus\u2019s biblical heroes as well as a key value in the Greco-Roman world.
\n259. fear is so terrible that it does not believe even a truthful self-defense Against Ahimelech\u2019s frank and open speech, with which Josephus agrees, the historian sets Saul\u2019s fearful heart, which makes the king blind to the truth. In his reflection on the episode (Ant. 6.268), Josephus blames Saul for killing 300 priests and prophets merely because Saul is suspicious of Ahimelech.
\nbeing more afraid of the deity Josephus highlights the sacrilegious nature of Saul\u2019s disposition by contrasting the deity\u2019s will with that of the king. Similarly, according to the Talmud, Saul\u2019s order to massacre the priests is a wicked act, so that when Saul directs Doeg to slay the priests, a heavenly voice comes forth to say: \u201cBe not overmuch wicked\u201d (B. Yoma 22b). According to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 63:3), the slaying of the priests is perpetrated by Saul himself.
\nthe Syrian Doeg Josephus, like the Septuagint (1 Sam. 21:7 LXX) and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 63:2), designates Doeg as a Syrian, whereas the Masoretic Text calls him an Edomite.
\n260. taking men as vile as himself, killed \u2026 385 Whereas in the Bible, Doeg alone kills 85 men (1 Sam. 22:18), Josephus, probably to avoid an unrealistic account where a single man kills 385 people, has Doeg taking other warriors with him. Moreover, whereas the Masoretic Text of the Bible reads 85 men, and the Greek text either 350 or 305, Josephus\u2019s manuscripts have different readings. We accept here the reading of some of the oldest manuscripts, which give 385, like Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 63:4). As for Doeg, according to the Mishnah he is one of the four common people who are not allowed to enter in the world to come (M. Sanh. 10:2), and he is designated as \u201cwicked\u201d in the Talmud, which says that despite being learned in the Torah, Doeg is learned only in his mouth and not in his heart (B. Sanh. 106b).
\nSaul \u2026 sent men to Nob, the city of the priests Whereas in the Hebrew Bible it is Doeg who puts the city to the sword (1 Sam. 22:19), Josephus emphasizes Saul\u2019s responsibility in the crime in his long reflection following the episode (Ant. 6.262\u201368). To stress the cruelty of the massacre, Josephus states in this passage that Saul burns the city and later on (6.268) that he demolishes the city in such a way that others might not come after them. It is worth noting that Josephus identifies Nob not only as the city of priests, but also as the city of prophets (Ant. 6.262\u201368): Josephus was himself a priest (Life 2) and a prophet (J.W. 3.400\u2013402), and on several occasions he stresses the close relationship between high priest and prophet (Ant. 3.214\u201318; 4.218; 5.120, 159; 6.115). All these considerations underline the seriousness of Saul\u2019s offense in Josephus\u2019 eyes.
\n261. as God had prophesied to the high priest Eli Josephus attaches the massacre of Nob to the prophecy given by God to Eli, through Samuel, that because of the sin of his sons his descendants would be destroyed (Ant. 5.350). This motivation is similar to that provided by Pseudo-Philo, according to whom the priests of Nob were profaning the food sacred to the LORD and took for themselves the firstfruits from the people; therefore God in his anger promised to destroy the inhabitants of Nob, because they walk in the path of Eli\u2019s sons, who likewise took the people\u2019s offerings for themselves before they were offered to God (L.A.B. 63:1). Both Josephus and Pseudo-Philo, therefore, highlight the nature of the priests of Nob\u2019s sin. Pseudo-Philo offers a further justification for the massacre of Nob, declaring that the inhabitants of Nob are guilty of raping the Levite\u2019s concubine (L.A.B. 45:3; Judg. 19); note that in Pseudo-Philo the rape does not occur in Gibeah, as in the Bible (Judg. 19:15), but in Nob. On the other hand, the Targum (TJon 1 Sam. 22:22) and the Talmud (B. Sanh. 95b) both stress David\u2019s responsibility in the massacre of the priests of Nob, the former emphasizing David\u2019s guilt, the latter his punishment. In particular, the Talmud maintains that like Abimelech, the priest was left with one son only (1 Sam. 22:20), and this would be for David\u2019s descendants, except for one remaining son, Joash.<\/p>\n
God Rejects Saul<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
In his portrait of Saul, Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities (6.143\u201355), enhances his character and not only devotes to him more space than the Bible does, but also\u2014despite Josephus\u2019s own opinion on monarchy\u2014provides for him the longest tribute of his biblical history. In this passage on God\u2019s rejection of Saul (1 Sam. 15:10\u201335), Josephus faces the need to explain the fall of his biblical hero after he disobeyed God by sparing the Amalekites\u2019 king Agag and the best of their cattle (1 Sam. 15:9), whereas the LORD had commanded him to destroy the people and their possessions utterly (1 Sam. 15:3). Moreover, Josephus has to deal with the theological issue of God\u2019s repentance for having elected Saul as king (1 Sam. 15:11). Josephus strives therefore to justify Saul\u2019s disobedience, as well as to elucidate God\u2019s reasons for his change of mind. Saul\u2019s story is presented by Josephus as a drama, and in particular as a peripeteia (a reversal of fortune): Saul\u2019s exultation because of the victory (in contrast to God\u2019s displeasure) and his final, irreversible decision to give the kingdom to another.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus\u2019s Interpretation of the Bible, 509\u201336. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
\nSpilsbury, Paul. The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus\u2019 Paraphrase of the Bible, 170\u201373. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
143. the prophet Samuel Whereas the Bible calls Samuel only once by this title (1 Sam. 3:20), Josephus designates Samuel as \u201cprophet\u201d 45 times. Samuel is described by Josephus as a typical prophet (as is Samson, according to Ant. 5.285) and a nazir. In fact, he is said to have been dedicated by his mother Hannah to God to become a prophet, in consequence of which his hair was left uncut and he drank only water (Ant. 5.347). Similarly, according to the Hebrew Sir. 46:13, Samuel was \u201cpledged in a vow, from his mother\u2019s womb, as one consecrated to the LORD [that is, a nazir] in the prophetic office.\u201d According to Rabbinic tradition, Samuel was equal to Moses and Aaron put together (Pesik. Rab. 43:182a) and superior to Moses, because the latter, in order to meet God, did so in the Tabernacle, whereas God spoke directly to Samuel (Exod. Rab. 16:4). Mek. R. Ish., Pisha ch. 1 also speaks on Moses\u2019s superiority.
\nhe repented The verb metanoein (to repent) is attributed by Josephus to God in this context alone; and it is rather problematic from the theological point of view because it implies a change of mind. He later uses the verb metamelein in a similar way, to denote God\u2019s regret that he had chosen Saul to be king (Ant. 6.145). In a previous paragraph (6.142) Josephus had remarked on God\u2019s displeasure at the preservation of the king of the Amalekites and the crowd\u2019s plundering of the livestock, which were done without God\u2019s permission.
\nto be reconciled with Saul In his portrait of Samuel, Josephus stresses his kindness to others as one of the reasons that made him dear to God. This kindly nature is particularly evident toward Saul. Whereas the Bible says that Samuel was angry at God\u2019s decision (1 Sam. 15:11) and cried to the LORD all night, Josephus describes Samuel as \u201cdisconcerted\u201d and repeatedly interceding on behalf of his king.
\n144. thinking it not just to indulge offenses Since God\u2019s resolve not to pardon Saul remains firm despite the intercession of the prophet, Josephus feels compelled to explain God\u2019s final decision with the principle that showing mercy to an oppressor encourages the increase of injustice. Rabbinic tradition (B. Yoma 22b; Midr. Sam. 18:100) is similarly concerned about justice: when God asks Saul to destroy Amalek and the king tries to justify the people, a voice from heaven tells Saul not to be righteous overmuch. As for Saul\u2019s crime, in commenting on the sparing of Agag (Ant. 6.137), Josephus notes that by this action Saul was no longer acting according to God\u2019s will but was yielding inopportunely to personal feelings and compassion. On the other hand, Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 58:3), who makes no mention of Samuel\u2019s intercession nor of his crying, has God immediately reveal to Samuel that Saul has been corrupted by money and has therefore spared both Agag and his wife. According to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 58:3) and the Talmud (B. Yoma 22b), the sparing of Agag is the gravest sin committed by Saul.
\n145. the king rushed up Whereas in the Bible it is Samuel who joins Saul (1 Sam. 15:13), Josephus stresses Saul\u2019s affection and readiness to meet the prophet by having Saul rush to Samuel and embrace him. He also emphasizes the piety of Saul, who gives thanks to God for victory instead of merely blessing Samuel, and who declares that he has done everything (apanta) according to God\u2019s will. Likewise, before the campaign against the Amalekites, the Josephan Saul states that obedience to God lies not just in going to war against the Amalekites, but also in doing it with readiness and speed (Ant. 6:134).
\n146. he had brought to him their king In 1 Sam. 15, Saul mentions Agag only later (v. 20). Josephus, probably to highlight Saul\u2019s veracity, anticipates the issue of the Amalekites\u2019 king and embellishes the biblical version by having Saul maintain that both he and Samuel will decide together about Agag\u2019s fate. Whereas in this passage Agag seems to be spared in order that his fate will be discussed with Samuel, earlier on (Ant. 6.137) Josephus has Saul allowing Agag to be saved out of admiration for his beauty and stature. In contrast, in Pseudo-Philo\u2019s account (L.A.B. 58:2) Saul spared both Agag and his wife because of his lust for money, in view of the Amalekites\u2019 king\u2019s promise to show him hidden treasures.
\n147\u201349. it is not by failing to sacrifice \u2026 that one despises God, but by seeming to disobey Josephus omits the equations of rebellion with divination and of stubbornness with idolatry (1 Sam. 15:23), neither of which would please his non-Jewish readers. On the other hand, he stresses and develops at length the topic of obedience as superior to sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22), probably because of the situation of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Moreover, Josephus tries once again to lessen Saul\u2019s act of disobedience by saying, in Samuel\u2019s words, that the king \u201cseems\u201d to disobey: Samuel apparently accepts Saul\u2019s explanation for preserving Agag as true, but asserts that it is important to not even give the appearance of disobedience. The topic of true worship (148) is found also in Ag. Ap. 2, where, presenting the Mosaic constitution, Josephus emphasizes that Jews must worship God by the practice of virtue, for that is \u201cthe form of worship of God that is most holy\u201d (Ag. Ap. 2.192). On the absolute loyalty of the Jews to their laws Josephus comments time and again in Ag. Ap. (2.150, 183), where he states that the Jews are the most law-abiding of all peoples and that their virtue consists in refraining from every action and thought that is contrary to the laws. In this way, the historian stresses one of the most positive aspects of Judaism that would raise sympathy in his non-Jewish readers.
\n150. Unless you think that sacrificing them \u2026 is the same as sacrificing them to perdition Josephus expands the way Samuel notifies Saul of God\u2019s rejection and adds this sarcastic allusion to an improbable ignorance on Saul\u2019s part. The dialog is more vivid and real than in the Bible (1 Sam. 15:15\u201323), with an interest in the psychology of the characters.
\n151. Saul admitted that he had done wrong \u2026 out of anxiety and fear of the soldiers Josephus seeks to diminish Saul\u2019s guilt by adding the motivations of Saul\u2019s behavior and by stressing the responsibility of the soldiers, who wanted to put their hands on the spoils. Even earlier, Josephus had underscored (Ant. 6.139) that the people were Saul\u2019s partners in sin, since they had spared the beasts and the cattle that God had destined to be destroyed. Similarly, Rabbinic tradition aims at lessening Saul\u2019s responsibility: Midr. Sam. 18:99\u2013100 states that it was Doeg who induced Saul to spare Agag, reasoning that if the law prohibits slaying the animal and its young on the same day, so much more is it illegal to destroy at one time old and young, men and children; according to the Talmud (B. Yoma 22b), Saul maintains that even if adults had sinned, children and cattle were guiltless. The Talmud, however, is less interested in justifying Saul than in justifying God\u2019s choice of him as king when he must have known what the end would be. Moreover, whereas in the Bible Saul begs Samuel to pardon his sin (1 Sam. 15:25), in Josephus, Saul is acting positively and is ready to change for the future.
\n152. was in a great hurry Josephus dramatizes the scene by adding the description of Samuel\u2019s haste and Saul\u2019s violent pulling. Note that, as in the Septuagint and 4QSama (1 Sam. 16:23), Josephus makes it clear that it is Saul who tears Samuel\u2019s garment; according to the Masoretic Text, either Samuel or Saul could be the one doing the pulling; and in Yal. 2:123, it is Samuel who tears Saul\u2019s garment.
\n153. change one\u2019s mind Both the Bible (1 Sam. 15:29 \u201cthe Glory of Israel\u201d) and Josephus stress the immutability of God\u2019s mind, in open contrast to the previous statement on God\u2019s repentance (Ant. 6.143, 145). The kingdom will go to a good and just man, since that, in the words of the prophet, pleases God (147). According to the Rabbis (Lev. Rab. 26:7), the sudden reversal in Saul\u2019s destiny is not due to God\u2019s change of mind; instead, they allocate the responsibility to Samuel, who\u2014out of fear\u2014did not speak openly to Saul when he was with him.
\n154. Samuel granted him this Samuel\u2019s kindness toward Saul is patent in this statement. Whereas in the Bible (1 Sam. 15:30\u201331), the prophet returns to the people with the king, in Josephus, Samuel even worships together with Saul.
\n155. Upon his inquiring In 1 Sam. 15:32, Agag states that the bitterness of death is past (MT), or that death is bitter (LXX); Josephus has the king ask a question.
\nimmediately directed that he be killed According to 1 Sam. 15:33 and to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 58:4), Samuel himself kills Agag. Josephus, as in his version of the story of Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:40; Ant. 8:343), avoids attributing a murder to a man of God, possibly because that would have been beneath Samuel\u2019s dignity. Moreover, Samuel is a nazir, which means he was all the more forbidden to touch a dead body. Finally, the historian refrains from any possible hint at Agag\u2019s execution as a human sacrifice. On the other hand, Rabbinic tradition is rich in details about Agag\u2019s death: according to some, Samuel cuts his body into pieces and throws them to the ostriches (Pesik. Rav Kah. 3:6); according to others, he binds him on four poles and kills him by pulling the poles apart (Pesik. Rab. 12). The Rabbis stress that this execution is not in accordance with Jewish law. According to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 58:4) Samuel kills Agag with a sword\u2014but in an earlier twist, before his execution, King Agag begets a son (L.A.B. 58:3) who ultimately kills Saul (L.A.B. 65:4).<\/p>\n
The Witch of Endor<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
In contrast to his generally negative attitude toward women (as one can see, for instance, in his portraits of Deborah, Jephthah\u2019s daughter, and Ruth), Josephus portrays the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28:3\u201325) as an extraordinarily positive character in his Jewish Antiquities (6.327\u201339). This is all the more striking in light of the Bible\u2019s condemnation of her profession (Lev. 19:31; 20:6\u20137; Deut. 18:1). The historian devotes to the witch a tribute (Ant. 6.340\u201342) in which he highlights her friendly readiness to help Saul, despite the fact that Saul himself has outlawed necromancy and is a stranger to her. Moreover, he emphasizes her outstanding generosity in offering to the king her only possession (her calf); her absolute selflessness, expecting no reward for her action; and her loyalty to the king, though at first she is determined not to violate the king\u2019s prohibition.
\nPseudo-Philo, by contrast, depicts the witch as the daughter of the Midianite diviner who led Israel astray, and as a diviner herself working for the Philistines (L.A.B. 64:3, 5). Josephus may have drawn a more positive portrait of the witch in order to appeal to his non-Jewish readers, presenting a woman who, despite being a necromancer, displays some of the Jewish virtues most deeply appreciated in Greco-Roman society, such as loyalty, generosity, and hospitality. Moreover, the depiction of the scene of the witch of Endor with rather positive nuances corresponds to Josephus\u2019s general enhancement of the character of King Saul.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Brown, C. A. No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women. Louisville KY: Westminster\/John Knox, 1992.
\nSmelik, K. A. D. \u201cThe Witch of Endor: 1 Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis till 800 AD.\u201d Vigiliae Christianae 33, no. 2 (1979): 160\u201379.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
327. banished \u2026 every operative of that sort, except for the prophets To describe the profession of the witch, Josephus uses the most common term for necromancer found in the Greek versions of the Bible (engastrimythos), and explains later on (Ant. 6.330) that this sort of necromancer brings up the souls of the dead. Unlike the Bible (1 Sam. 28:3), however, Josephus explicitly excludes the prophets from the categories banned, either because in the next paragraph Saul consults them (328), or because his audience might otherwise include the prophets among the people banished, whereas according to the Bible and to Josephus himself, divination through prophets is legitimate (e.g., 1 Kings 22:6; Ant. 7.72). Pseudo-Philo, in his attempt to downgrade Saul\u2019s character, says that Saul bans the prophets to boost his own fame (L.A.B. 64:1).
\n329. an inevitable calamity Josephus does not mention that Saul also tries the method of divination known as the urim (1 Sam. 28:6), possibly because it was a practice unfamiliar to his audience, although explained by the historian in a previous passage of the Jewish Antiquities (3.214\u2013218). Rather, Josephus chooses to stress Saul\u2019s tragic destiny, both here in Saul\u2019s own premonition, and later on when Samuel sees Saul\u2019s final change of fortune (Gk.: metabol\u0113; Ant. 6.335).
\n330. Saul, unbeknown to all in the camp \u2026 took with him two of his servants Josephus dramatizes the scene, providing details about the trustworthiness of the servants (once again, a key value for Josephus\u2019s audience) and the secrecy of the operation. He does not specify that the consultation occurs at night (1 Sam. 28:8; L.A.B. 64:4), avoiding the association of king Saul (in Josephus a positive character) with a somber setting, and possibly avoiding a hotly debated issue, as attested in later Rabbinic tradition. The ritual was performed during the day according to Tanh. B 3:82, and the same Rabbinic context (Tanh. B 3:81) provides details on the two servants, calling them Abner and Amasa.
\nwent to En-dor to the woman Josephus speaks actually of Dor. As in the Bible, the woman has no name in Josephus\u2019s account. On the contrary, Pseudo-Philo calls her Sedecla (L.A.B. 64:3), and makes her the daughter of the Midianite diviner\u2014likely Aod the magician who showed Israel the sun shining in the middle of the night (L.A.B. 34)\u2014and therefore one of Israel\u2019s enemies. Moreover, Pseudo-Philo says she has been practicing divination for the Philistines for 40 years (L.A.B. 64:5). In Pirke R. El. 33, as well as in Pseudo-Jerome (Quaest. Hebr., PL 23:1408B), she becomes the mother of Abner.
\n331. The woman \u2026 declined Josephus emphasizes the woman\u2019s loyalty to authority, probably to present her to his readers as a model of behavior. Jewish loyalty to laws and authority is a leitmotif in Josephus\u2019s work, especially in an apologetic context: for instance, in Ag. Ap. 1.190\u201391; 2.156, 184, 228, 232, 254 and Ant. 3.317, 319 Josephus stresses Jewish loyalty to ancestral customs, and in Ap. 2.61, 64, 134 he emphasizes their loyalty to the Romans. Pseudo-Philo, on the other hand, stresses the witch\u2019s fear of Saul and has the king ask her whether she has ever seen Saul. At her positive answer, the king goes outside and weeps, realizing that the glory of his kingdom has passed from him (L.A.B. 64:4).
\n332\u201333. Not knowing who Samuel was, she called him from Hades Whereas the Bible states that Saul asks the woman to evoke Samuel, implying her knowledge of the prophet (1 Sam. 28:11), Josephus maintains that she does not know him, probably to enhance the suspense and justify her surprise at Samuel\u2019s emergence. Moreover, Josephus rewrites the biblical scene according to Greek terminology, using the Gk. term Ad\u0113s for the Heb. She\u2019ol (underworld) that he mostly applies to philosophical contexts or to Gentiles\u2019 belief. Pseudo-Philo and Rabbinic tradition, however, deal with the problematic raising up of Samuel: according to Pseudo-Philo, Samuel was not summoned by the woman or the king, but by a word that God spoke to the prophet while he was still alive (L.A.B. 64:7). According to the Talmud, the necromancer is able to bring up Samuel even though the souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory, because Samuel is called within 12 months of his death when the soul can ascend and descend (B. Shab. 152b).
\na venerable and godlike man \u2026 wearing a priestly cloak Josephus provides more details than the Bible about Samuel\u2019s appearance. Whereas the Hebrew Bible describes him as elohim (1 Sam. 28:13) and the Greek Bible (ibid.) renders this term literally with theous, or \u201cgods,\u201d Josephus is careful to point out that Samuel is a man, although godlike (theoprep\u0113) and with a form (morph\u0113) similar to God. The historian aims at distinguishing the only God of the Jews, who deserves worship, from any man, godly as a great prophet like Samuel might be. Such ascriptions were not unusual considering the frequent Greco-Roman phenomenon of apotheosis of heroes (e.g. Heracles) to which Josephus\u2019s audience was accustomed; a similar Josephan attitude occurs in Ant. 4.326 regarding Moses and his death. As for the dress of Samuel, in Josephus the mantle is described as a priestly one, either because me\u2019il was the name of the robe of the high priest (see Ant. 3.159), or because of Samuel\u2019s service before the ark of Shiloh during his childhood (1 Sam. 1\u20133), or simply to give an extra element of venerability to Samuel\u2019s appearance. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo emphasizes the motif of the mantle, which recalls to Saul the one that was torn during Samuel\u2019s life, indicating the division of his kingdom; Pseudo-Philo likewise provides details about Samuel\u2019s appearance: he is clothed in a white robe with a mantle placed over it and is led by two angels (L.A.B. 64:6). According to Pirke R. El. 33, a dead person, if summoned, will appear in the garments in which he was buried.
\nSamuel had disclosed this to her While the Bible does not explain how the woman discovers that she is dealing with Saul (1 Sam. 28:12), Josephus supplies a rational motivation; he also turns the woman\u2019s statement into a question, probably to dramatize the scene. In Pseudo-Philo, Sedecla understands that the king is in front of her because she sees Samuel rising up together with Saul (L.A.B. 64:5). According to Rabbinic tradition, however, the woman recognizes Saul because Samuel is raised upright, since a spirit rises with the head downward in front of ordinary citizens and upward in front of a king (Lev. Rab. 26:7); moreover, according to the same tradition and to the Talmud (B. Hag. 4b), Samuel comes up together with Moses, thinking that the judgment day has arrived and that the legislator will testify his observance of the Torah.
\n334. someone who will take care of me Josephus stresses the close relationship between Samuel and the king, as he did when he highlighted the repeated intercession of the prophet on behalf of his king (Ant. 6.143).
\n336. you will be with me, having fallen in battle along with your sons Whereas the Hebrew Bible maintains that Saul and his sons will be with Samuel the next day (1 Sam. 28:19), and the Greek Bible (ibid.) states that they will fall (Gk.: pesountai), Josephus conflates the two versions, adding the detail of the battle to prepare the reader for Saul\u2019s heroic death (Ant. 6.368\u201372). Josephus, like the Bible, does not specify where Saul will be the next day with Samuel, whereas the Talmud maintains that he will be in his compartment, that is, in paradise, indicating that the LORD has forgiven him (B. Ber. 12b; B. Er. 53b).
\n337. either because of the pain \u2026 or because of hunger To the biblical statement that Saul is weak because of his fast the previous day and night (1 Sam. 28:20), Josephus adds the explanation of the emotional pain caused by the devastating revelation, providing further nuances to the king\u2019s human character and psychology. On the contrary, Pseudo-Philo omits any reference to Saul\u2019s fast, as that would hint at pious behavior, and instead has the king admitting that his destruction might be an atonement for his iniquity (L.A.B. 64:9).
\n338. the woman joined him Josephus emphasizes the woman\u2019s insistence and amplifies her attempts to persuade the king, thereby stressing her role and her piety, while reducing those of the two servants.
\n339. she had a single tame calf \u2026 as her only possession Josephus, omitting any allusion to the bread offered by the woman (1 Sam. 28:24), focuses on the calf, which is presented as the only possession of the woman and very close to her, since she has raised it at home. Josephus may be alluding to Nathan\u2019s parable on the poor man and his lamb, which is slaughtered by a rich man to provide a meal for a traveler (2 Sam. 12:3\u20134). By referring to the woman as a day laborer, Josephus highlights her poverty and the generosity of her noble act.<\/p>\n
The Death of Saul<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
Throughout his portrait of Saul in Jewish Antiquities (6.368\u201372, 375\u201378), Josephus emphasizes the king\u2019s courage in military leadership and deeds: he stresses the difficulties that he faces, inflates the number of enemies he kills, and insists on his strategic skills. This is all the more true in the account of Saul\u2019s death (1 Sam. 31:1\u20132 Sam. 1:10), where the historian, unlike Pseudo-Philo, who depicts the king as a coward (L.A.B. 65:1), stresses the heroism both of the elite troop around the king and of the king himself. As for the manner of Saul\u2019s death, Josephus (who has access to 1 Sam. 31 and 1 Chron. 10, according to which Saul falls on his own sword, and 2 Sam. 1:7\u201310, where Saul invites an Amalekite to help his suicide) draws on and harmonizes the accounts of the books of Samuel, and has the king assisted in his suicide by a young Amalekite. The historian considers voluntary death a heroic act, as typical of the Greco-Roman world of his day, especially within stoic circles. Among the most famous episodes of noble death in the ancient world, one could recall Seneca\u2019s suicide under Nero, described in detail by Tacitus (Ann. 15.62\u201364), as well as the death of Socrates (Plato, Apol. 28a\u201330b), which was considered the paradigm of the stoic heroic death by the philosopher Epictetus (cf., e.g., 4.1.165). Josephus stresses Saul\u2019s desire to die a noble death on his own sword, a solution that is in line with the historian\u2019s own treatment of biblical suicide, as well as with the Rabbis\u2019 positive comments on Saul\u2019s death.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Feldman, Louis H. Josephus\u2019s Intepretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
\nLiss, H. \u201cThe Innocent King: Saul in Rabbinic Exegesis.\u201d In Saul in Story and Tradition, edited by C. S. Ehrlich in cooperation with M. C. White, 245\u201360. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 47. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2006.
\nSpilsbury, Paul. The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus\u2019 Paraphrase of the Bible. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998.
\nVan Henten, Jan Willem, and Friedrich Avemarie. Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity. New York: Routledge, 2002.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
368. Saul \u2026 fought nobly In his earlier tribute to Saul (Ant. 6.344\u201345), Josephus commends the king because even though Saul has foreknowledge of his death through Samuel\u2019s prophecy, he heroically chooses to face his and his sons\u2019 death rather than betray his people to the enemy and dishonor the dignity of kingship. Similarly, in the Midrash God himself praises Saul for taking his sons with him in spite of this foreknowledge (Lev. Rab. 26:7). Here, Josephus again echoes an earlier passage (Ant. 6.349) by focusing on Saul\u2019s kingly desire for glory. Finally, in saying that both the king and his sons fight nobly, Josephus uses a word (gennai\u014ds) that is related to the character of a well-born hero. By contrast, Pseudo-Philo depicts a complete defeat of the people and a coward-king: Saul goes out in battle and the Israelites flee in front of the enemy; once the battle becomes fierce, the king asks himself why he should fight for life when his own and his sons\u2019 death has already been determined (L.A.B. 65:1).
\n369. there was disorder, confusion, and slaughter Whereas, according to 1 Sam. 31:1 and to Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 65:1), the Israelites flee as soon as the battle begins, in Josephus, who is eager to build up the courage of the Jewish nation, they take flight only after seeing their king and his sons die. The historian further dramatizes the scene by adding details about the confusion and the consequent massacre, and aggrandizes the number of the Israelites fallen in battle: according to the Josephan account of the young Amalekite\u2019s report to King David (Ant. 7.2), many tens of thousands were slain, whereas the Bible merely refers to \u201cmany\u201d (2 Sam. 1:4).
\n370. Since he was too weak to kill himself Whereas in the Bible, Saul invites his armor-bearer to slay him\u2014which provides an opportunity to question the king\u2019s courage (1 Sam. 31:4; 1 Chron. 10:4)\u2014in Josephus the intention to commit suicide is evident from the beginning: Saul receives so many wounds in a magnificent fight that he can no longer endure them, but is also too weakened by them to commit suicide and therefore asks for assistance.
\nenemy Notably, where the Bible says that Saul\u2019s main concern is to avoid being slain by the uncircumcised (1 Sam. 31:4; 1 Chron. 10:4), Josephus speaks in more general terms of the enemy. Josephus aims to avoid the biblical contradiction between the account of 1 Samuel\/1 Chronicles, according to which Saul\u2019s distress is mostly due to the uncircumcised, and 2 Samuel, where the king is fully aware of the identity of the Amalekite. Moreover, Josephus tries not to voice any contempt for non-Jews, which might lead to a charge of misanthropy.
\n371. A certain youth was \u2026 to provide him with such a death as he desired 2 Sam. 1:7 is vague on the Amalekite\u2019s physical position, which is somewhere behind the king, as specified by both Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 65:3) and Josephus. However, in Pseudo-Philo the Amalekite runs away and Saul calls to him, but Josephus depicts him standing next to the king: in this way, Saul does not need to call for help, but simply can give an order. Moreover, according to Josephus, Saul explicitly desires to die on his own sword and have a heroic death, while in Pseudo-Philo the king does not dare to kill himself, since he begs the youth to slay him with his (the Amalekite\u2019s) sword. Pseudo-Philo further specifies that the Amalekite youth was Edabus, who was born to Agag shortly before his death and whose role had been predicted by God to Samuel (L.A.B. 58:3\u20134). Josephus considers voluntary death\u2014for which he coins a noun (autocheiria)\u2014a noble and heroic act. In fact, he does not deal negatively with the instances of suicide mentioned in the Bible. Despite his disapproving view of Abimelech as a character, he does not find his way of dying worthy of reproach (Judg. 9:50\u201355; Ant. 5.251\u201353); he is definitely positive toward Samson (Judg. 16:22\u201331), maintaining that, while his being trapped by a woman must be imputed to human nature, he had a sublime death and was given an honorable burial (Ant. 5.317). The historian reports the voluntary death of Saul\u2019s armor-bearer without comment (Ant. 6.372); he also states that it was better for Ahitophel to remove himself from the world in a free and noble spirit than to surrender himself to David (2 Sam. 17:23; Ant. 7.229); finally, he is clear in stating that Zimri, like Saul, aimed at his own death, which therefore was not an accident (1 Kings 16:18; Ant. 8.311). Accordingly, the death of Saul is reckoned by Josephus a heroic one. The Rabbinic view on suicide is mixed. The Rabbis disputed whether Ahitophel would or would not enter the world to come, but the Talmud does not condemn Samson\u2019s self-destruction, saying that God answered his prayer and allowed him the strength to destroy his own life and that of the Philistines (B. Sot. 10a). As for Saul, Rabbinic texts deal with his death not as a suicide but as an act of atonement under Samuel\u2019s authority. In fact, according to Pirke R. El. 33 and Lev. Rab. 26:7, Saul is told by Samuel that he is to fall by the sword and that if he does so, his death will bring atonement, so that he will dwell in paradise. The Rabbis (see comment on Ant. 6.368) praise Saul\u2019s acceptance of his terrible fate. Finally, in an important midrashic discussion of Gen. 9:5, which was considered by some Rabbis to be the single biblical text against suicide, Saul is excluded and placed instead with such martyrs as Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Gen. Rab. 34:13).
\n375\u201376. thought that it was terrible to leave them unburied In many passages of his work, Josephus emphasizes the importance of burial in Jewish practice: according to Ag. Ap. (2.205, 211) the Law prescribes that one not leave a corpse unburied. Burial was considered an unwritten and natural law in Greek ethics (e.g. Antig., Suppl. 531; Pausanias 1.32.5; Carm. 1.28.2; Aen. 6.365), which was particularly emphasized in Hellenistic Jewish literature. Apart from Josephus, one could recall the mentions of burial in the book of Tobit (1:17\u201318; 2:7; 4:3; 12:12\u201313), in Sir. 38:16, in Ps.-Phoc. 99, and in Philo (Ios. 5, Hypoth. 7.79). Deuteronomy implies the prescription, applying it even to criminals (Deut. 21:22\u201323). Similarly, Josephus maintains that the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been crucified are taken down and buried before sunset (Ant. 4.265; see also J.W. 3.377; 4.317; Ant. 4.202; 5.44; 16.394).
\nthose outstanding for their daring \u2026 their courage Josephus once more stresses the courage and the strength of all the Israelites, not just of the king and his elite troop.
\n377. with public weeping I have translated klausantes as \u201cweeping,\u201d whereas Benedictus Niese, the 19th-century editor of Josephus\u2019s works, conjectures kausantes, or \u201cburning.\u201d Public weeping was common for the death of a national leader: at his death, Moses was mourned by the Israelites for 30 days (Ant. 4.330), just as Aaron and Miriam were (Ant. 4.78); when Samuel died, the people wept for him many days and grieved each one as for his own (Ant. 6.293); Judah Maccabee was honored with the customary ceremonies (Ant. 12.432), and Herod was publicly mourned as well (J.W. 1.581; 2.5).
\nin the most beautiful place in their country, called Aroura Josephus embellishes the biblical account, saying that Saul was buried in the fairest spot in the country of the Jabeshenians, which was where Saul had urged his friends to remain loyal to him (Ant. 6.251).
\nbeating their breasts, lamenting the king and his sons Whereas 1 Sam. 31:13 and 1 Chron. 10:12 mention only a seven-day fast, Josephus adds the beating of breasts, as he does in his account of David\u2019s grief for Absalom\u2019s death (Ant. 7.252). Lament and beating of breast were two of the most common funerary practices in the Greco-Roman world: Greeks and Romans made use of hired female mourners (called in Latin praeficae, cf. Varro, De lingua latina 7.3), who accompanied the funeral procession and disheveled their hair while crying, lamenting, and beating their breasts. According to Plutarch, legislators such as Lycurgus and Solon made attempts to abolish the practice with little result (Lyc. 27; Sol. 21). The practice is attested also in Rabbinic literature: Tosefta counts the beating of the breast as part of the funeral custom (Mak. 2:17).
\n378. he had disobeyed God\u2019s commandments \u2026 he had destroyed According to Josephus, as for most of the tradition, Saul\u2019s main sins consist of his disobedience during the campaign against the Amalekites (see Ant. 6.131\u201355) and of the slaughter of the priests of Nob (6.255\u201368); Josephus probably regarded the latter as a major crime because of his own priestly origin. On the other hand, 1 Chron. 10:13 focuses on Saul\u2019s consulting the spirit of Samuel instead of the LORD, and Pseudo-Philo focuses on Saul\u2019s sparing of Agag because of lust for his treasures (L.A.B. 58:2\u20133, 65:4). The Talmud mentions the massacre at Nob as one of the main sins of Saul, but states that it was a consequence of what happened with Agag (B. Yoma 22b).<\/p>\n
David Kills Goliath<\/p>\n
Silvia Castelli<\/p>\n
There are basically two different accounts of David\u2019s encounter with Goliath of Gath (1 Sam. 17): a one longer in the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text) and in most manuscripts of the Greek Bible (Septuagint, LXX), and a much shorter one found in the 4th-century manuscript of the Septuagint known as the Vaticanus. In his Jewish Antiquities (6.177\u201390), Josephus stands in an intermediate position, sometimes agreeing with the Vaticanus and sometimes agreeing with the MT. More specifically, he seems to have made use of an \u201cintermediate\u201d textual form, most similar to that represented by Lucianic manuscripts of the LXX. In his retelling of the story of David and Goliath, Josephus both enhances the role and authority of Saul and builds up David\u2019s character, despite his general tendency to downplay David. Thus, he highlights David\u2019s deference to the king, stresses his boldness and strength while confronting the lion, and enhances his piety toward and trust in God. Contrary to Josephus\u2019s usual style, God\u2019s action is highlighted in the entire passage about David\u2019s victory over Goliath, possibly in order to limit David\u2019s personal role in this achievement.
\nIn this, Josephus is paralleled by Pseudo-Philo, who has Goliath and David killed by the angel Zervihel (L.A.B. 61:5, 8). However, unlike Pseudo-Philo, the Targum, and the Rabbinic tradition, which depict the single combat as a supernatural one and stress the miraculous in the episode, Josephus avoids the spectacular and keeps himself on a human level. In his account, it is most likely David who killed Goliath, having God as weapon and ally. In fact, Josephus remarks on God\u2019s pronoia (providence) time and again in his work. However, unlike other contemporary Jewish authors, such as Pseudo-Philo, Josephus often explains the miraculous in human terms (as he does in the episode of the water at Marah in Ant. 3.8 or about the quails in Ant. 3.25), or he stresses the fact that he writes the account as he has found it in the Scripture, leaving to the reader the judgment of fact, and possibly providing a parallel for similar miraculous events (such as the episode of the Israelites in the Red Sea, Ant. 2.347\u201348). So, he does not avoid the miraculous and the supernatural, but he has a critical attitude toward them.
\nMoreover, Josephus was confronted with a contradiction in the Bible itself. There we read of three encounters with Goliath, or someone closely resembling Goliath: one with David (1 Sam. 17); one with Elhanan, who is a Bethlehemite like David (2 Sam. 21:19); and one with a nephew of David (2 Sam. 21:20\u201321). Josephus, who, like the Bible, assigns the incident of Elhanan to a later period when David is king, does not mention Goliath\u2019s name, and he describes Elhanan\u2019s opponent as the bravest of the Palestinians (Ant. 7.302). Further, he does not write about the encounter of David\u2019s nephew with the giant. Even though Josephus exalts Saul and limits David\u2019s character elsewhere, he likely could not avoid the crucial place and popularity of David in the famous passage of his combat with Goliath.
\nFor more on Josephus, see \u201cJosephus and His Writings\u201d elsewhere in this volume.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Begg, C. \u201cThe David and Goliath Story according to Josephus.\u201d Le Mus\u00e9on (1999): 3\u201320.
\nFeldman, Louis H. Josephus\u2019s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
177. Goliath came again In his description of Goliath, Josephus writes about his overwhelming size, saying that he was a man of gigantic stature and that his weapons corresponded to the nature of his body(Ant. 6.171). But when he get specific, he states that the giant measured four cubits (approximately six feet), in agreement with the LXX (1 Sam. 17:4) and the Qumran scroll of Samuel (4QSama), whereas the MT says six cubits (approximately nine feet). Moreover, in his attempt to aggrandize the stature of the giant, Josephus says that Goliath is followed not by his armor-bearer alone, but by many, who carried his armor (Ant. 6.171). Josephus (6.174), like 1 Sam. 17:16, has Goliath address his challenge for 40 days but offers no explanation for the significance of that length of time; Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 61:2) says Goliath came for his challenge for as many days as the Israelites rejoiced in the desert while they were receiving the Law.
\n178. Eliab \u2026 reprimanded him \u2026 David withdrew Josephus is careful to stress David\u2019s obedience and loyalty to his superiors, namely: to his father, saying that David was speaking with his brothers about what had been directed by his parent (Ant. 6.177); to his king, speaking to him with respect and only after the invitation to express his opinion (6.179); and to his elder brother. In this last case, Josephus emphasizes David\u2019s respect and omits his self-justification to his brother (1 Sam. 17:29).
\n179. Saul \u2026 inquired what he wished to say Josephus emphasizes Saul\u2019s elevated role and character by his several additions to the biblical version: Goliath addresses himself first to Saul (Ant. 6.172) and not simply to the ranks of Israel (1 Sam. 17:8); it is Saul who sends David away to his father Jesse, being content with the other three sons (Ant. 6.175). The Bible states merely that David was still young when his three elder brothers left for war with Saul [1 Sam. 17:14]); and David does not speak in Saul\u2019s presence before the latter invites him to talk (Ant. 6.179). Josephus adds that Saul admires David\u2019s boldness and animation (181), and that the king prays that David might be rewarded by God for his eagerness and daring (184). Thereby, the historian aggrandizes the king\u2019s personality, in keeping with his general portrait of Saul. Saul\u2019s role in Goliath\u2019s story is highlighted also by Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 61:2), according to whom Goliath addresses Saul and challenges him to descend to face the Philistines as a king and as a man\u2014and by the Midrash (Midr. Sam. 11:1; Midr. Ps. 7:2), according to which it was Saul and not David who faced Goliath: the king went and snatched the tablets of the Law from Goliath\u2019s hand, out of zeal and concern for the Law, and then came to Shiloh.
\nDo not let your mind be dejected or fearful The way David addresses Saul in Josephus is similar to that of the LXX (1 Sam. 17:32) and of Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 61:4), where the invitation to keep the heart strong is directed specifically to the king and not generally to everyone. Josephus, however, prefers to use the term for \u201cmind\u201d (phron\u0113ma) instead of the biblical term for \u201cheart\u201d (LXX kardia).
\n181. confident that God is with me Josephus enhances David\u2019s piety and his trust in the Deity by having David invoke God at the start of his reply to Saul, while 1 Sam. 17:34\u201337 refers to God only at the end of the speech.
\n182. I lifted him up by the tail Josephus is likely highlighting David\u2019s strength and deeds, stating that he lifted the lion up by his tail rather than by his beard (as in the MT), or by his jaw (as in the LXX and the Targum [T. Jon]), and that he destroyed him by dashing him against the ground rather than by smiting him (as in 1 Sam. 17:35). However, Josephus does not aggrandize David\u2019s courage as much as Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 61:1), who states that when the Midianites wanted to steal David\u2019s flocks, he killed 15,000 of their men. Similarly, the Talmud (B. Mo\u2019ed Qat. 16b) says that David was able to slay 800 men with a single javelin throw, and the Midrash (Midr. Sam. 20:5) says that David as a young man killed four lions and three bears in one day.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Story of Balaam Louis H. Feldman Josephus, addressing critical readers of the Bible, attempts to solve contradictions, such as the Bible\u2019s apparent conflation of Moabites and Midianites. As one who had a close relationship with the Romans, he seeks to refute the view that the Israelites were hated by whole nations rather than by … <\/p>\n